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

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @JZauner (Johannes Zauner)
Repository: https://github.com/tscnlab/LightLogR
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper
Version: v0.4.1
Editor: @rwegener2
Reviewers: @cansavvy, @welch16
Managing EiC: Kevin M. Moerman

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3a1057dccd315b7eb8683c1b969402e2"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3a1057dccd315b7eb8683c1b969402e2/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3a1057dccd315b7eb8683c1b969402e2/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3a1057dccd315b7eb8683c1b969402e2)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @JZauner. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@JZauner if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, 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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.07 s (1569.0 files/s, 370264.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSV                              2              0              0          11432
R                               81            773           3410           5171
Markdown                        10            348              0           1107
Rmd                              5            472            619            579
YAML                             4             22              9            184
TeX                              1             17              0            163
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           103           1632           4038          18636
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   119	Johannes Zauner
    71	Jzauner
    22	Manuel Spitschan
    22	steffenhartmeyer
     3	Steffen Hartmeyer

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1502

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1111/jsr.14225 is OK
- 10.1177/14771535241248540 is OK
- 10.1101/2024.02.11.24302663 is OK
- 10.1177/14771535221103258 is OK
- 10.1101/2024.10.02.616112 is OK
- 10.1123/jmpb.2018-0063 is OK
- 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.20557.1 is OK
- 10.1177/20552076221144858 is OK
- 10.20944/preprints202409.1285.v1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.measurement.2024.114909 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 is OK
- 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3771881/v1 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.13839724 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: LightLogR: Process Data from Wearable Light Logger...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: LightLogR: Process Data from Wearable Light Logger...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: LightLogR: Process Data from Wearable Light Logger...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: LightLogR: Tutorial: The whole game
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU General Public License v3.0 (Check here for OSI approval)

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

mhealthtools: A Modular R Package for Extracting Features from Mobile and Wearable Sensor Data
Submitting author: @philerooski
Handling editor: @trallard (Retired)
Reviewers: @Ebedthan, @AKuederle
Similarity score: 0.6772

activAnalyzer: An R Shiny app to analyse ActiGraph accelerometer data and to implement the use of the PROactive Physical Activity in COPD instruments
Submitting author: @pydemull
Handling editor: @samhforbes (Active)
Reviewers: @elimillera, @angerhang
Similarity score: 0.6750

lightr: import spectral data and metadata in R
Submitting author: @bisaloo
Handling editor: @danielskatz (Active)
Reviewers: @danielskatz
Similarity score: 0.6684

Devicely: A Python package for reading, timeshifting and writing sensor data
Submitting author: @arianesasso
Handling editor: @prashjha (Active)
Reviewers: @luciorq, @djmitche
Similarity score: 0.6650

PupillometryR: An R package for preparing and analysing pupillometry data
Submitting author: @samhforbes
Handling editor: @oliviaguest (Active)
Reviewers: @paulinepalma, @Athanasiamo
Similarity score: 0.6593

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot invite @rwegener2 as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[rwegener2]

@editorialbot add me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @rwegener2 is now the editor

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

lightr: import spectral data and metadata in R
Submitting author: @bisaloo
Handling editor: @danielskatz (Active)
Reviewers: @danielskatz
Similarity score: 0.6764

mhealthtools: A Modular R Package for Extracting Features from Mobile and Wearable Sensor Data
Submitting author: @philerooski
Handling editor: @trallard (Retired)
Reviewers: @Ebedthan, @AKuederle
Similarity score: 0.6728

SleepPy: A python package for sleep analysis from accelerometer data
Submitting author: @elyiorgos
Handling editor: @lheagy (Retired)
Reviewers: @eskofier, @ikarosilva, @nhejazi
Similarity score: 0.6693

PupillometryR: An R package for preparing and analysing pupillometry data
Submitting author: @samhforbes
Handling editor: @oliviaguest (Active)
Reviewers: @paulinepalma, @Athanasiamo
Similarity score: 0.6642

Devicely: A Python package for reading, timeshifting and writing sensor data
Submitting author: @arianesasso
Handling editor: @prashjha (Active)
Reviewers: @luciorq, @djmitche
Similarity score: 0.6606

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[JZauner]

Dear JOSS Team,

Here are suggestions for reviewers based on the provided database:

jamesmbaazam
petermacp
Tgerke
hantswilliams
epiben

Thanks and best regards

[rwegener2]

👋🏻 @petermacp and @tgerke, would either 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

[JZauner]

Dear JOSS Team,

We internally discussed changing the license of LightLogR to a more permissive one, i.e. to MIT instead of GPL. As the licence is documented in the paper, it would be great if we can change this in the paper and the paper branch and merge it to the main branch, so that the license change does not happen after publication.
Would that be acceptable to JOSS? If so, please give a short indication and I will update the branch's license and the relevant part in the manuscript.
Best, Johannes

[rwegener2]

Hi @JZauner! Not a problem. Feel free to change the license, just merge into the branch.

[rwegener2]

👋🏻 @hantswilliams and @epiben, would 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

[rwegener2]

👋🏻 @jamesmbaazam or @stemangiola, would 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

[jamesmbaazam]

Hi @rwegener2 thanks for the invite but I am unavailable to do this review at this time.

[rwegener2]

No problem @jamesmbaazam. Thanks for the response!

[rwegener2]

👋🏻 @cansavvy or @amalthomas111, would 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

[cansavvy]

👋🏻 @cansavvy or @amalthomas111, would 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

I won't be able to have the bandwidth for this immediately but I am interested. What's the deadline?

[rwegener2]

I won't be able to have the bandwidth for this immediately but I am interested. What's the deadline?

Thanks for the response @cansavvy! We ask that reviewers do their best to complete reviews 2-4 weeks after the review has begin.

We don't start the review until both reviewers are identified, so if you'd like I can continue looking for another reviewer and re-ping you when we are closer to starting the review. Would that work?

[cansavvy]

2 - 4 weeks is doable. And yes that sounds good. In that case, I'm available to do this review.

[rwegener2]

2 - 4 weeks is doable. And yes that sounds good. In that case, I'm available to do this review.

Wonderful, thanks @cansavvy! I'll add you as a reviewer now, then, but if you prefer to stay off the "accepted" reviewer list for now just let me know and I'll remove you and re-request a review later.

[rwegener2]

@editorialbot add @cansavvy as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@cansavvy added to the reviewers list!

[rwegener2]

👋🏻 @Wytamma or @snamburi3, would 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

[Wytamma]

Hi @rwegener2 - thanks for the invitation to review. I’m going on leave until the new year on the 18th. Not sure if I’ll be able to get this done before then, but can give it a go if @snamburi3 is unavailable.

[rwegener2]

Hi @Wytamma thanks for the reply! If you think you can complete the review by the 18th I'd be happy to add you as a reviewer. If not, no worries. We have a database of reviewers and I'll go ahead and reach out to another reviewer from our database.

[Wytamma]

I don’t think I can commit to it so will have to pass on this one. But thanks again for the invitation.

[rwegener2]

I don’t think I can commit to it so will have to pass on this one. But thanks again for the invitation.

No worries. Thanks for the response, @Wytamma!

[rwegener2]

👋🏻 @zhanzmr or @welch16, would either 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

[welch16]

@rwegener2 , I have chance to review the manuscript

[zhanzmr]

@rwegener2 , I am also available to review the manuscript. Thanks.

[rwegener2]

@editorialbot add @welch16 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@welch16 added to the reviewers list!

[rwegener2]

Wow, thanks for such a speedy reply both @welch16 and @zhanzmr!

As the first to reply I've added @welch16 to the list of reviewers. @zhanzmr we would love to have your expertise as a third reviewer, if you would like. I'm sure your input would improve the quality of this submission.

@zhanzmr I will note that JOSS only requires two reviewers and adding you as a third reviewer is not a JOSS requirement. As such, if you would like to pass on this review that is totally fine and I'm sure JOSS will call on your expertise for a future submission.

Either way is excellent for me - @zhanzmr just let me know if you'd like to be added as a reviewer to this submission, or if you prefer hold off and wait to review a different JOSS submission. Thanks!

[zhanzmr]

Hi @rwegener2 , No worries! I can pass this one and wait for next one. Thanks so much for the invite!

[rwegener2]

No worries! I can pass this one and wait for next one. Thanks so much for the invite!

Sounds good @zhanzmr. Thanks for being willing to review, we really appreciate it!

[rwegener2]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #7601.