Data

Tools

Indexes

Applications

Experiments

Open Source Science

review-of-software-publication-checklist

A Checklist for reviewing software publications

https://github.com/ewatercycle/review-of-software-publication-checklist

Science Score: 64.0%

This score indicates how likely this project is to be science-related based on various indicators:

  • ✓
    CITATION.cff file
    Found CITATION.cff file
  • ✓
    codemeta.json file
    Found codemeta.json file
  • ✓
    .zenodo.json file
    Found .zenodo.json file
  • ○
    DOI references
  • ✓
    Academic publication links
    Links to: zenodo.org
  • ✓
    Committers with academic emails
    1 of 1 committers (100.0%) from academic institutions
  • ○
    Institutional organization owner
  • ○
    JOSS paper metadata
  • ○
    Scientific vocabulary similarity
    Low similarity (6.3%) to scientific vocabulary
Last synced: 4 months ago · JSON representation ·

Repository

A Checklist for reviewing software publications

Basic Info
  • Host: GitHub
  • Owner: eWaterCycle
  • License: apache-2.0
  • Default Branch: main
  • Size: 15.6 KB
Statistics
  • Stars: 1
  • Watchers: 3
  • Forks: 0
  • Open Issues: 2
  • Releases: 1
Created over 2 years ago · Last pushed over 2 years ago
Metadata Files
Readme License Citation

README.md

Review Of Software Publication, a Checklist

DOI

A checklist that reviewers can use when peer-reviewing academic papers that introduce new software. I'm sharing this checklist with three goals:

  • It might help others when reviewing (or writing) papers about research software.
  • Sharing this checklist also helps in expectation management: by referring to this checklist reviewers can clearly indicate what they did.
  • By adopting this checklist as (part of their) reviewers guidelines journals communicate clearly to other scientists, but also to science-journalists and to society at large, what it means for a piece of software to be 'peer-reviewed'.

By sharing this checklist, in the spirit of Open Science, others are given the opportunity to build upon, comment and improve upon the list here provided. Please use pull requests on the checklist.md. When referencing this checklist (maybe because you used it when reviewing a paper), please cite it using this meta-data: DOI

Owner

  • Name: eWaterCycle
  • Login: eWaterCycle
  • Kind: organization

Citation (CITATION.cff) 

# This CITATION.cff file was generated with cffinit.
# Visit https://bit.ly/cffinit to generate yours today!

cff-version: 1.2.0
title: >-
  On the difficulties in reviewing academic software papers
  in the earth sciences: a helpful checklist
message: >-
  If you use this checklist, please cite it using these
  metadata.
type: software
authors:
  - affiliation: Delft University of Technology
    family-names: Hut
    given-names: Rolf
    orcid: 'https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5697-5697'
  - affiliation: Netherlands eScience Center
    family-names: Drost
    given-names: Niels
    orcid: 'https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9795-7981'
  - affiliation: Netherlands eScience Center
    family-names: Kalverla
    given-names: Peter
    orcid: 'https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5025-7862'
  - affiliation: Delft University of Technology
    family-names: Aerts
    given-names: Jerom
    orcid: 'https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0157-4818'
identifiers:
  - type: doi
    value: 10.5281/zenodo.8168785
repository-code: >-
  https://github.com/eWaterCycle/ReviewOfSoftwarePublicationChecklist/
abstract: >-
  A checklist that reviewers can use when peer-reviewing
  academic papers that introduce new software. I'm sharing
  this checklist with three goals:


  - it might help others when reviewing (or writing) papers
  about research software.

  - Sharing this checklist also helps in expectation
  management: by referring to this checklist reviewers can
  clearly indicate what they did.

  - By adopting this checklist as (part of their) reviewers
  guidelines journals communicate clearly to other
  scientists, but also to science-journalists and to society
  at 

  large, what it means for a piece of software to be
  'peer-reviewed'.
keywords:
  - software publications
  - peer review
license: Apache-2.0

GitHub Events

Total
Last Year

Committers

Last synced: almost 2 years ago

All Time
  • Total Commits: 7
  • Total Committers: 1
  • Avg Commits per committer: 7.0
  • Development Distribution Score (DDS): 0.0
Past Year
  • Commits: 7
  • Committers: 1
  • Avg Commits per committer: 7.0
  • Development Distribution Score (DDS): 0.0
Top Committers
Name Email Commits
Rolf Hut r****t@t****l 7
Committer Domains (Top 20 + Academic)
tudelft.nl: 1

Issues and Pull Requests

Last synced: almost 2 years ago

All Time
  • Total issues: 2
  • Total pull requests: 1
  • Average time to close issues: N/A
  • Average time to close pull requests: 10 days
  • Total issue authors: 1
  • Total pull request authors: 1
  • Average comments per issue: 0.0
  • Average comments per pull request: 2.0
  • Merged pull requests: 1
  • Bot issues: 0
  • Bot pull requests: 0
Past Year
  • Issues: 2
  • Pull requests: 1
  • Average time to close issues: N/A
  • Average time to close pull requests: 10 days
  • Issue authors: 1
  • Pull request authors: 1
  • Average comments per issue: 0.0
  • Average comments per pull request: 2.0
  • Merged pull requests: 1
  • Bot issues: 0
  • Bot pull requests: 0
View more stats
Top Authors
Issue Authors
  • hcwinsemius (2)
Pull Request Authors
  • RolfHut (1)
Top Labels
Issue Labels
Pull Request Labels