Sample messages for authors and reviewers

Sample email to potential reviewers

Dear Dr. Jekyll,

I found you following links from the page of The Super Project and/or on Twitter. This
message is to ask if you can help us out with a submission to JOSS (The Journal of Open
Source Software, https://joss.theoj.org), where I’m an editor.

JOSS publishes articles about open source research software. The submission I'd like you
to review is titled: "great software name here"

and the submission repository is at: https://github.com/< … >

JOSS is a free, open-source, community driven and developer-friendly online journal
(no publisher is seeking to raise revenue from the volunteer labor of researchers!).

The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open,
and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged.

JOSS reviews involve downloading and installing the software, and inspecting the repository
and submitted paper for key elements. See https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

Editors and reviewers post comments on the Review issue, and authors respond to the comments
and improve their submission until acceptance (or withdrawal, if they feel unable to
satisfy the review).

Would you be able to review this submission for JOSS? If not, can you recommend
someone from your team to help out?

Kind regards,

JOSS Editor.

Query scope of submission

:wave: thanks for your submission to JOSS. From a quick inspection of this submission it's not entirely obvious that it meets our [submission criteria](https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#submission-requirements). In particular, this item:

> - Your software should have an obvious research application

Could you confirm here that there _is_ a research application for this software (and explain what that application is)? The section [_'what should my paper contain'_](https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/paper.html#what-should-my-paper-contain) has some guidance for the sort of content we're looking to be present in the `paper.md`.

Many thanks!

GitHub invite to potential reviewers

:wave: @reviewer1, @reviewer2, @reviewer3, @reviewer4, would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html. Please be so kind to let me know even if you're not interested, so that I can start looking for other reviewers.

Message to reviewers at the start of a review

👋🏼 @authorname @reviewer1 @reviewer2 this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

As a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering

```@editorialbot generate my checklist```

as the top of a new comment in this thread.

These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention `openjournals/joss-reviews#REVIEW_NUMBER` so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if any of you require some more time. We can also use EditorialBot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@editorname) if you have any questions/concerns.

Message to authors at the end of a review

At this point could you:
- Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here.
- Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g., figshare, an institutional repository)
- Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) has the correct metadata. This includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it). You may also add the authors' ORCID.
- Please list the DOI of the archived version here.

I can then move forward with recommending acceptance of the submission.

Rejection due to out of scope/failing substantial scholarly effort test

(Note that rejections are handled by EiCs and not individual editors).

@authorname - thanks for your submission to JOSS. Unfortunately, after review by the JOSS editorial team we've determined that this submission doesn't meet our [substantial scholarly effort](https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#substantial-scholarly-effort) criterion.

One possible alternative to JOSS is to follow [GitHub's guide](https://guides.github.com/activities/citable-code/) on how to create a permanent archive and DOI for your software. This DOI can then be used by others to cite your work.

Rejection due to scope and significance test

:wave: @name - I'm sorry to say that this submission does not meet the current [scope and significance](https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#scope-and-significance) requirements for review by JOSS.

> Projects developed privately are not eligible until there is a public record of open development: at least six months of public history prior to submission, with evidence of releases, public issues and pull requests.

Your repository shows very limited public development over a period which falls significantly short of the six-month requirement.

**Important:** Meeting the six-month development history requirement alone is not sufficient for JOSS publication. We will also be looking for clear evidence of demonstrated impact (such as publications using the software, external adoption beyond your research group, or documented research enabled by your tool).

Simply keeping a repository public for six months without evidence of use or community adoption will not make a submission eligible.

Please see https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#other-venues-for-reviewing-and-publishing-software-packages for other suggestions for how you might receive credit for your work.

Rejection: does not yet meet pre-review screening criteria

Use this template when a submission fails one or more of the hard screening gates. Delete the lines that don’t apply, and add a sentence of specific context where helpful.

:wave: @name — thanks for your submission to JOSS.

After an initial screening we're not able to move this forward at this time. The
submission doesn't yet meet one or more of our [pre-review screening criteria](https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#pre-review-screening-criteria):

<!-- delete inapplicable lines and add specific context where helpful -->
- **Public development history:** The repository has not yet been public for six months with active development spanning that period.
- **Demonstrated research impact:** We weren't able to find clear evidence that the software is being used for research beyond the submission itself.
- **Open source practices:** The repository is missing several of the expected indicators of an open project (tagged releases, tests/CI, documentation, contribution guidelines, etc.).
- **Iterative development:** The development history appears concentrated in a short window rather than developed iteratively over time.

This is a "not yet" rather than a final rejection. We'd encourage you to address these gaps, continue developing openly, and resubmit in six months or more. When you do resubmit, please note in your submission what has changed and reference this issue.