Skip to content

Remove figshare form documentation #1434

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
+5 −5
Open

Remove figshare form documentation #1434

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
d623ead
Remove figshare form documentation
diehlpk May 26, 2025
1ba3921
Remove Zenodo and just describe the features and mention Zenodo as one
diehlpk May 26, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion docs/editing.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ Sometimes you'll need to add a new reviewer once the main review (i.e. post pre-

## Post-review

When a submission is ready to be accepted, we ask that the authors issue a new tagged release of the software (if changed), and archive it (on [Zenodo](https://zenodo.org/), [fig**share**](https://figshare.com/), or other). The authors then post the version number and archive DOI in the `REVIEW` issue. The handling editor executes the pre-publication steps, and pings the Track Editor-in-Chief for final processing.
When a submission is ready to be accepted, we ask that the authors issue a new tagged release of the software (if changed), and archive it on a service that ideally supports key features such as software licenses, author ORCIDs, and version tagging aligned with the actual content (rather than merely reflecting the number of archive deposits). One suitable example is [Zenodo](https://zenodo.org/). The authors then post the version number and archive DOI in the `REVIEW` issue. The handling editor executes the pre-publication steps, and pings the Track Editor-in-Chief for final processing.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think we can say "ideally". We need to state firm requirements. And I don't really understand a lot of the text here.

Also, I don't think "version tagging aligned with the actual content (rather than merely reflecting the number of archive deposits)" is really a requirement. If this is just a preference, we should drop it from the text.


Optionally you can ask EditorialBot to generate a checklist with all the post-review steps running the command: `@editorialbot create post-review checklist`

Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion docs/editorial_bot.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ Most units of times are understood by EditorialBot e.g. `hour/hours/day/days/wee

### Setting the software archive

When a submission is accepted, we ask that the authors to create an archive (on [Zenodo](https://zenodo.org/) or other) and post the archive DOI in the `REVIEW` issue. The editor should ask `@editorialbot` to add the archive to the issue as follows:
When a submission is accepted, we ask that the authors to create an archive and post the archive DOI in the `REVIEW` issue. The editor should ask `@editorialbot` to add the archive to the issue as follows:
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't see how this change is helpful. It seems more confusing (with less information) to me.


```text
@editorialbot set 10.0000/zenodo.00000 as archive
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion docs/submitting.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ After submission:
- Authors will respond to reviewer-raised issues (if any are raised) on the submission repository's issue tracker. Reviewer and editor contributions, like any other contributions, should be acknowledged in the repository.
- **JOSS reviews are iterative and conversational in nature.** Reviewers are encouraged to post comments/questions/suggestions in the review thread as they arise, and authors are expected to respond in a timely fashion.
- Authors and reviewers are asked to be patient when waiting for a response from an editor. Please allow a week for an editor to respond to a question before prompting them for further action.
- Upon successful completion of the review, authors will make a tagged release of the software, and deposit a copy of the repository with a data-archiving service such as [Zenodo](https://zenodo.org/), get a DOI for the archive, and update the review issue thread with the version number and DOI.
- Upon successful completion of the review, authors will make a tagged release of the software, and deposit a copy of the repository with a data-archiving service, get a DOI for the archive, and update the review issue thread with the version number and DOI.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't see how this change is helpful. It seems more confusing (with less information) to me.

I also don't think "data-archiving service" is the right thing here. I think better wording would be something like "an archival repository that meets ... requirements" where we also point to what the requirements are.

- After we assign a DOI for your accepted JOSS paper, its metadata is deposited with CrossRef and listed on the JOSS website.
- The review issue will be closed, and an automatic post from [@JOSS at Mastodon](https://fosstodon.org/@joss) will announce it!

Expand Down