[REVIEW]: activAnalyzer: An R Shiny app to analyse ActiGraph accelerometer data and to implement the use of the PROactive Physical Activity in COPD instruments #4741

editorialbot · 2022-09-05T16:10:54Z

Submitting author: @pydemull (Pierre-Yves de Müllenheim)
Repository: https://github.com/pydemull/activAnalyzer
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.1.0
Editor: @samhforbes
Reviewers: @elimillera, @angerhang
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7384191

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5d6659af1bf8ca2fb977c189039b8315"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5d6659af1bf8ca2fb977c189039b8315/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5d6659af1bf8ca2fb977c189039b8315/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5d6659af1bf8ca2fb977c189039b8315)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@elimillera & @spitschan & @angerhang, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @samhforbes know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @angerhang

📝 Checklist for @elimillera

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

editorialbot · 2022-09-05T16:10:55Z

Hello humans, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2022-09-05T16:10:58Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.09 s (1125.1 files/s, 244759.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R                               68           1803           2113          11621
XML                              1              0            129           1589
Markdown                         6            207              0            825
TeX                              4             55              0            771
Rmd                             10            298            683            657
CSS                              2             62             16            274
YAML                             7             35              8            173
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            98           2460           2949          15910
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot · 2022-09-05T16:11:00Z

Wordcount for paper.md is 1135

editorialbot · 2022-09-05T16:11:42Z

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.pcad.2014.10.005 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rmed.2021.106353 is OK
- 10.1111/sms.14085 is OK
- 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000468 is OK
- 10.1136/bmjresp-2018-000350 is OK
- 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318258cb36 is OK
- 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181fc7162 is OK
- 10.15326/jcopdf.2021.0213 is OK
- 10.1183/09031936.00004814 is OK
- 10.1136/bjsports-2019-101765 is OK
- 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-214554 is OK
- 10.1093/gerona/53A.4.M275 is OK
- 10.1183/09031936.00183014 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0077036 is OK
- 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182399dcc is OK
- 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001073 is OK
- 10.1016/j.arbres.2020.08.001 is OK
- 10.1007/s40279-017-0716-0 is OK
- 10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000737 is OK
- 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30105-3 is OK
- 10.1183/09031936.00023214 is OK
- 10.2147/COPD.S214410 is OK
- 10.32614/RJ-2014-024 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2022-09-05T16:12:22Z

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

samhforbes · 2022-09-05T16:19:42Z

Hi @elimillera, @spitschan, @angerhang please see the instructions at the top of the review thread.

Once you've generated your checklist you can use this as the basis for your review.
Generally speaking it's useful to post an overview here, but deal with individual points by opening issues on the target repository, and linking them here so we are all on the same page.
Feel free to direct any queries to me, but otherwise we look forward to the benefit of your expertise.

angerhang · 2022-09-30T22:00:42Z

Review checklist for @angerhang

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/pydemull/activAnalyzer?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@pydemull) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

angerhang · 2022-09-30T23:10:15Z

Overall, I found activAnalyzer easy to navigate and use. The documentation and paper are well-written and easy to follow. So happy to see another open source software trying to reduce the hurdle of the costly ActiLife software in the community. The added integration of COPD questionnaires is excellent. I am happy to tick most of the checkboxes above with a few minor comments:

Limited gender category in the survey UI
Good to clarify high-level dependencies for both debugging and others to contribute in the future
It would also be good to provide a sample .agd file for us so that can verify that the package works? It might also be a good idea to include this test file in your CI tests to ensure that your data gets processed properly.

@pydemull thanks a lot for making this valuable contribution to the community. I look forward to your revisions and seeing the generated report myself using some of the test files before signing off the rest of the checklist.

Great job, nontheless :D

elimillera · 2022-10-02T23:51:41Z

Review checklist for @elimillera

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/pydemull/activAnalyzer?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@pydemull) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

pydemull · 2022-10-05T13:40:49Z

Thank you very much @angerhang for your comments. Before making the required changes to the package, I have some questions to be sure of what you want.

Regarding the issue related to the "gender" options: Actually, it was not "Gender" (that refers to a "constellation of sociocultural processes that interact with and have the potential to influence human biology" [Schiebinger, et al. Lancet. 2016]) but "Sex" (that refers to "a biological variable based upon chromosomal assignment, and generally male, female, or intersex" [Schiebinger, op. cit.]) that should be provided. While I totally respect and am happy with all the gender categories, there are two reasons for which I choose sex information only. The first one is that the equations used in the app (and that have been previously published) actually use a binary classification (male/female, men/women) and I suspect that the studies that used the "gender" term when they did not use the "sex" term, actually took (reported) sex information, because there are of course more than only two gender categories. The second reason is that gender may be more complex to assess, at least when reported (but I may be wrong when saying this), and because the app did not need this information, I prefered to avoid this difficulty. However, in the editorial by Schiebinger cited above, the term "intersex" is evocated, and this may be an information confirming that my options are indeed incomplete. Would it be ok for you if I keep the "sex" information with the following options: "male", "female", "intersex", "undefined"?
Regarding your remarks for the .agd file: Actually, once the package is installed locally, you can access the file by the following code (as shown in the examples of the functions): file <- system.file("extdata", "acc.agd", package = "activAnalyzer"). This is the data file that is loaded when the user clicks on the dedicated button to choose the "demo file" inside the app. This also is this file that is used for my CI tests that are performed thanks to the files that can be found in the "tests" folder of the package. So yes, there are CI tests (or maybe you though about other things?). Based on this comment, would you prefer I make available the agd file content when the user uses the data() function? Or my explanations are now sufficient for you?

Thanks a lot for your time and work.

angerhang · 2022-10-12T17:07:00Z

Thank you very much @angerhang for your comments. Before making the required changes to the package, I have some questions to be sure of what you want.

Regarding the issue related to the "gender" options: Actually, it was not "Gender" (that refers to a "constellation of sociocultural processes that interact with and have the potential to influence human biology" [Schiebinger, et al. Lancet. 2016]) but "Sex" (that refers to "a biological variable based upon chromosomal assignment, and generally male, female, or intersex" [Schiebinger, op. cit.]) that should be provided. While I totally respect and am happy with all the gender categories, there are two reasons for which I choose sex information only. The first one is that the equations used in the app (and that have been previously published) actually use a binary classification (male/female, men/women) and I suspect that the studies that used the "gender" term when they did not use the "sex" term, actually took (reported) sex information, because there are of course more than only two gender categories. The second reason is that gender may be more complex to assess, at least when reported (but I may be wrong when saying this), and because the app did not need this information, I prefered to avoid this difficulty. However, in the editorial by Schiebinger cited above, the term "intersex" is evocated, and this may be an information confirming that my options are indeed incomplete. Would it be ok for you if I keep the "sex" information with the following options: "male", "female", "intersex", "undefined"?

Regarding your remarks for the .agd file: Actually, once the package is installed locally, you can access the file by the following code (as shown in the examples of the functions): file <- system.file("extdata", "acc.agd", package = "activAnalyzer"). This is the data file that is loaded when the user clicks on the dedicated button to choose the "demo file" inside the app. This also is this file that is used for my CI tests that are performed thanks to the files that can be found in the "tests" folder of the package. So yes, there are CI tests (or maybe you though about other things?). Based on this comment, would you prefer I make available the agd file content when the user uses the data() function? Or my explanations are now sufficient for you?

Thanks a lot for your time and work.

Thanks a lot for your response @pydemull . Now I understand the rationale of your design choice. Thanks for being willing to build a more inclusive scientific software. Perhaps intersex and undefined will work? I guess with non-binary individuals, you will just take an average of both sex for your calculation?
I think your explanations are sufficient. I will try testing the software using the sample data this weekend. Thanks a lot!

pydemull · 2022-10-12T20:05:03Z

Dear @samhforbes @angerhang @elimillera, CRAN has requested I make some updates of the package so that it passes R-dev checking (this is in relation with a planned update of R regarding as.character.POSIXt()). I have made the update and the current CRAN version is now 1.0.5. (Thus, I will have to make a change in the JOSS paper where I gave a version number for the package; I will remove the version number for the package).
Sincerely

pydemull · 2022-10-12T20:29:14Z

Thank you very much @angerhang for your comments. Before making the required changes to the package, I have some questions to be sure of what you want.

Regarding the issue related to the "gender" options: Actually, it was not "Gender" (that refers to a "constellation of sociocultural processes that interact with and have the potential to influence human biology" [Schiebinger, et al. Lancet. 2016]) but "Sex" (that refers to "a biological variable based upon chromosomal assignment, and generally male, female, or intersex" [Schiebinger, op. cit.]) that should be provided. While I totally respect and am happy with all the gender categories, there are two reasons for which I choose sex information only. The first one is that the equations used in the app (and that have been previously published) actually use a binary classification (male/female, men/women) and I suspect that the studies that used the "gender" term when they did not use the "sex" term, actually took (reported) sex information, because there are of course more than only two gender categories. The second reason is that gender may be more complex to assess, at least when reported (but I may be wrong when saying this), and because the app did not need this information, I prefered to avoid this difficulty. However, in the editorial by Schiebinger cited above, the term "intersex" is evocated, and this may be an information confirming that my options are indeed incomplete. Would it be ok for you if I keep the "sex" information with the following options: "male", "female", "intersex", "undefined"?

Regarding your remarks for the .agd file: Actually, once the package is installed locally, you can access the file by the following code (as shown in the examples of the functions): file <- system.file("extdata", "acc.agd", package = "activAnalyzer"). This is the data file that is loaded when the user clicks on the dedicated button to choose the "demo file" inside the app. This also is this file that is used for my CI tests that are performed thanks to the files that can be found in the "tests" folder of the package. So yes, there are CI tests (or maybe you though about other things?). Based on this comment, would you prefer I make available the agd file content when the user uses the data() function? Or my explanations are now sufficient for you?

Thanks a lot for your time and work.

Thanks a lot for your response @pydemull . Now I understand the rationale of your design choice. Thanks for being willing to build a more inclusive scientific software. Perhaps intersex and undefined will work? I guess with non-binary individuals, you will just take an average of both sex for your calculation?

I think your explanations are sufficient. I will try testing the software using the sample data this weekend. Thanks a lot!

Good question for the calculation with intersex... I have not yet found any reference regarding energy expenditure for this. I must think about it...

samhforbes · 2022-10-12T21:33:37Z

@pydemull not to worry, we can set the version number both here and in the paper at the end.

Thanks everyone for your discussions and input to date!

angerhang · 2022-10-16T19:26:24Z

Thank you very much @angerhang for your comments. Before making the required changes to the package, I have some questions to be sure of what you want.

Regarding the issue related to the "gender" options: Actually, it was not "Gender" (that refers to a "constellation of sociocultural processes that interact with and have the potential to influence human biology" [Schiebinger, et al. Lancet. 2016]) but "Sex" (that refers to "a biological variable based upon chromosomal assignment, and generally male, female, or intersex" [Schiebinger, op. cit.]) that should be provided. While I totally respect and am happy with all the gender categories, there are two reasons for which I choose sex information only. The first one is that the equations used in the app (and that have been previously published) actually use a binary classification (male/female, men/women) and I suspect that the studies that used the "gender" term when they did not use the "sex" term, actually took (reported) sex information, because there are of course more than only two gender categories. The second reason is that gender may be more complex to assess, at least when reported (but I may be wrong when saying this), and because the app did not need this information, I prefered to avoid this difficulty. However, in the editorial by Schiebinger cited above, the term "intersex" is evocated, and this may be an information confirming that my options are indeed incomplete. Would it be ok for you if I keep the "sex" information with the following options: "male", "female", "intersex", "undefined"?

Regarding your remarks for the .agd file: Actually, once the package is installed locally, you can access the file by the following code (as shown in the examples of the functions): file <- system.file("extdata", "acc.agd", package = "activAnalyzer"). This is the data file that is loaded when the user clicks on the dedicated button to choose the "demo file" inside the app. This also is this file that is used for my CI tests that are performed thanks to the files that can be found in the "tests" folder of the package. So yes, there are CI tests (or maybe you though about other things?). Based on this comment, would you prefer I make available the agd file content when the user uses the data() function? Or my explanations are now sufficient for you?

Thanks a lot for your time and work.

Thanks a lot for your response @pydemull . Now I understand the rationale of your design choice. Thanks for being willing to build a more inclusive scientific software. Perhaps intersex and undefined will work? I guess with non-binary individuals, you will just take an average of both sex for your calculation?

I think your explanations are sufficient. I will try testing the software using the sample data this weekend. Thanks a lot!

Tested with the demo data. The report generated is super sick! Am sure many will benefit from using this software. There are still outstanding tasks regarding the sex calculation and dependency instructions. But I am happy to tick all the boxes from my checklist :D

pydemull · 2022-10-21T09:05:10Z

Thanks again for your comments! I have provided answers for the two issues you have opened. Regarding the dependency instructions, I am not sure your comment above was done before or after my answer on the dedicated GitHub issue. Please tell me if it is not enough. Best

samhforbes · 2022-10-21T14:52:09Z

Thanks @angerhang for the productive comments so far.

Hi @elimillera, @spitschan - while the last couple of comments from @angerhang are resolved, do let us know if there's any issues with completing the review, or let @pydemull know if there's any barriers to running anything for the review.

elimillera · 2022-10-26T18:36:59Z

Hey @pydemull, I've reviewed the package, repository, and paper. I've ran all the tests I generally run to determine package quality and they are all coming back green, they repository is well formed and has good CI and contributor information, and the paper is well written.

Looks good to me!

pydemull · 2022-10-27T06:59:21Z

Thanks @elimillera for your time and work. Glad to know that all seem ok for you. @samhforbes, @angerhang, for information I have merged the dev branch with the master branch in relation to the modifications made following the @angerhang's comments. I have then taken the liberty to close the issues opened by @angerhang. Best

samhforbes · 2022-11-21T16:32:04Z

@editorialbot remove @spitschan from reviewers

editorialbot · 2022-11-21T16:32:06Z

@spitschan removed from the reviewers list!

samhforbes · 2022-11-21T16:44:17Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2022-11-21T16:45:47Z

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

pydemull · 2022-11-30T21:26:54Z

@samhforbes please find here the DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7384191
Regarding the article, I have removed from the text the version number associated to the CRAN version for more simplicity. The current version is thus 1.1.0.
Best

samhforbes · 2022-12-01T11:03:47Z

@editorialbot set v1.1.0 as version

editorialbot · 2022-12-01T11:03:49Z

Done! version is now v1.1.0

samhforbes · 2022-12-01T11:04:35Z

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7384191 as archive

editorialbot · 2022-12-01T11:04:37Z

Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7384191

samhforbes · 2022-12-01T11:05:34Z

@pydemull this looks good and the archive seems to contain everything. I am recommending accept - well done on a great paper and software package.

samhforbes · 2022-12-01T11:05:55Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2022-12-01T11:05:56Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2022-12-01T11:07:25Z

👋 @openjournals/sbcs-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#3770, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2022-12-01T11:10:47Z

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.pcad.2014.10.005 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rmed.2021.106353 is OK
- 10.1111/sms.14085 is OK
- 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000468 is OK
- 10.1136/bmjresp-2018-000350 is OK
- 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318258cb36 is OK
- 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181fc7162 is OK
- 10.15326/jcopdf.2021.0213 is OK
- 10.1183/09031936.00004814 is OK
- 10.1136/bjsports-2019-101765 is OK
- 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-214554 is OK
- 10.1093/gerona/53A.4.M275 is OK
- 10.1183/09031936.00183014 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0077036 is OK
- 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182399dcc is OK
- 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001073 is OK
- 10.1016/j.arbres.2020.08.001 is OK
- 10.1007/s40279-017-0716-0 is OK
- 10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000737 is OK
- 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30105-3 is OK
- 10.1183/09031936.00023214 is OK
- 10.2147/COPD.S214410 is OK
- 10.32614/RJ-2014-024 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2022-12-01T11:52:57Z

pydemull · 2022-12-01T15:46:25Z

Thanks (again!) @samhforbes. Great to have JOSS and the opportunity to publish software-related work. @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman, I have made the corrections you required (thanks for this). The new version of the paper has been uploaded on the master branch.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2022-12-01T15:53:16Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2022-12-01T15:54:34Z

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2022-12-01T16:04:03Z

@pydemull okay all looks good now, thanks for making those changes

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2022-12-01T16:04:23Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2022-12-01T16:04:25Z

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2022-12-01T16:06:17Z

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

editorialbot · 2022-12-01T16:06:18Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2022-12-01T16:06:19Z

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.04741 joss-papers#3774
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04741
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2022-12-01T16:51:04Z

@pydemull congratulations on this publication in JOSS!

@samhforbes Thanks for editing this submission!

Special thanks also to the reviewers: @elimillera and @angerhang

editorialbot · 2022-12-01T16:51:26Z

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04741/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04741)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04741">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04741/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04741/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04741

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

editorialbot added CSS R review TeX Track: 4 (SBCS) Social, Behavioral, and Cognitive Sciences labels Sep 5, 2022

editorialbot assigned samhforbes Sep 5, 2022

editorialbot mentioned this issue Sep 5, 2022

[PRE REVIEW]: activAnalyzer: An R Shiny app to analyse ActiGraph accelerometer data and to implement the use of the PROactive Physical Activity in COPD instruments #4614

Closed

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Dec 1, 2022

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Dec 1, 2022

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman closed this as completed Dec 1, 2022

editorialbot mentioned this issue Sep 9, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: JMDSFCv1.0: an Interactive R/Shiny Application for Dataset Format Conversion with Real-Time Progress Monitoring #7202

Closed

This was referenced Oct 15, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: BeSiDE - Bead Size Distribution Estimator : ShinyApp for detecting the shape and size of microparticles from multiple microscopic images #7350

Closed

[PRE REVIEW]: LightLogR: Reproducible analysis of personal light exposure data #7377

Closed

editorialbot mentioned this issue Dec 3, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: EHRs Data Harmonization Platform, an easy-to-use R package and shiny app based on recodeflow for harmonizing and deriving clinical features #7554

Open

[REVIEW]: activAnalyzer: An R Shiny app to analyse ActiGraph accelerometer data and to implement the use of the PROactive Physical Activity in COPD instruments #4741

[REVIEW]: activAnalyzer: An R Shiny app to analyse ActiGraph accelerometer data and to implement the use of the PROactive Physical Activity in COPD instruments #4741

Comments

editorialbot commented Sep 5, 2022 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Sep 5, 2022

editorialbot commented Sep 5, 2022

editorialbot commented Sep 5, 2022

editorialbot commented Sep 5, 2022

editorialbot commented Sep 5, 2022

samhforbes commented Sep 5, 2022

angerhang commented Sep 30, 2022 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @angerhang

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

angerhang commented Sep 30, 2022

elimillera commented Oct 2, 2022 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @elimillera

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

pydemull commented Oct 5, 2022 • edited Loading

angerhang commented Oct 12, 2022

pydemull commented Oct 12, 2022

pydemull commented Oct 12, 2022

samhforbes commented Oct 12, 2022

angerhang commented Oct 16, 2022

pydemull commented Oct 21, 2022

samhforbes commented Oct 21, 2022

elimillera commented Oct 26, 2022

pydemull commented Oct 27, 2022

samhforbes commented Nov 21, 2022

editorialbot commented Nov 21, 2022

samhforbes commented Nov 21, 2022

editorialbot commented Nov 21, 2022

pydemull commented Nov 30, 2022

samhforbes commented Dec 1, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 1, 2022

samhforbes commented Dec 1, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 1, 2022

samhforbes commented Dec 1, 2022

samhforbes commented Dec 1, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 1, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 1, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 1, 2022

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Dec 1, 2022 • edited Loading

pydemull commented Dec 1, 2022

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Dec 1, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 1, 2022

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Dec 1, 2022

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Dec 1, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 1, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 1, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 1, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 1, 2022

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Dec 1, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 1, 2022

editorialbot commented Sep 5, 2022 •

edited

Loading

angerhang commented Sep 30, 2022 •

edited

Loading

elimillera commented Oct 2, 2022 •

edited

Loading

pydemull commented Oct 5, 2022 •

edited

Loading

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Dec 1, 2022 •

edited

Loading