Skip to content

Update policies.md #325

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
Open

Update policies.md #325

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
0a6c09e
Update policies.md
InessaPawson Jul 25, 2025
e324463
Remove trailing whitespace in policies.md
InessaPawson Jul 27, 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
196 changes: 122 additions & 74 deletions our-process/policies.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2,133 +2,181 @@

## Review Process Guidelines

pyOpenSci packages are reviewed for quality, fit, scope,
documentation and usability. The review process
is similar to a manuscript review, however it has a stronger
focus on Python packaging best practices.
pyOpenSci packages are reviewed for quality, fit, scope, documentation, and
usability. The review process is similar to a manuscript review, however, it
has a stronger focus on Python packaging best practices.

Unlike a manuscript review, our peer review process is an ongoing conversation. Once all major issues and questions are addressed, the review editor package will make a decision to accept, hold, or reject the package.
Unlike a manuscript review, our peer review process is an ongoing conversation.
Once all major issues and questions are addressed, the review editor will make
a decision to accept, hold, or reject the package.

Rejections are usually done early in the process, before the review process begins. In rare cases a package may also not be on-boarded into the pyOpenSci ecosystem after review & revision.
Rejections are usually done early in the process, before the review process
begins. In rare cases, a package may also not be on-boarded into the pyOpenSci
ecosystem after review & revision.

It is ultimately the editor’s decision on whether or not to reject the package based on how the reviews are addressed.
It is ultimately the editor’s decision on whether or not to reject the package
based on how the reviews are addressed.

## Review communication approach
## Review Communication Approach

Communication between authors, reviewers and editors takes
place on GitHub. You can, however choose to contact the editor by email if needed.
Communication between authors, reviewers, and editors takes
place on GitHub. You can, however choose to contact the editor by email if
needed.

When submitting a package, please make sure that your GitHub notification settings are setup to notify you when you receive feedback on the review issue.
When submitting a package, please make sure that your GitHub notification
settings are setup to notify you when you receive feedback on the review issue.

## Submitting your package for review in other venues
## Submitting Your Package for Review in Other Venues

We recommend submitting your package for review with pyOpenSci before
submitting a software paper describing the package to a journal.

Review feedback may result in major improvements and updates to your package,
including changes that could be break package functionality.

Applying reviewer or editor recommendations to your package can improve your user's experience with future versions of your package
even if your package is already published on `PyPI` or `conda-forge`.
Applying reviewer or editor recommendations to your package can improve your
users' experience with future versions of your package even if your package is
already published on `PyPI` or `conda-forge`.

> Please do not submit your package for review while it or an associated manuscript is
> also under review at another venue, as this may result on conflicting requests
> for changes from two sets of reviewers.
> Please do not submit your package for review while it or an associated
> manuscript is also under review at another venue, as this may result on
> conflicting requests for changes from two sets of reviewers.

### Publication with Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS)

If you have previously published your software package with JOSS, you can still
submit it to pyOpenSci for review. This provides:

- Increased visibility of your package as a vetted tool within the scientific python ecosystem
- We will also keep in touch with you as a maintainer to support long term maintenance. If you need to step down from maintaining your package we will help find a new maintainer and/or help sunset the tool.
- Increased visibility of your package as a vetted tool within the scientific Python
ecosystem
- We will also keep in touch with you as a maintainer to support long-term
maintenance. If you need to step down from maintaining your package, we will help
find a new maintainer and/or help sunset the tool.

(coi)=

### Conflict of interest for reviews and editors

Following criteria are meant to be a guide for what constitutes a conflict of interest
for an editor or reviewer. The potential editor or reviewer has a conflict of interest
if:

- The authors with a major role are from the potential reviewer/editor’s institution or institutional component (e.g., department)
- Within in the past three years, the potential reviewer/editor has been a collaborator
or has had any other professional relationship with any person on the package who has
a major role
- The potential reviewer/editor serves as a member of the advisory board for the project under review
- The potential reviewer/editor would receive a direct or indirect financial benefit if the package is accepted
- The potential reviewer/editor has significantly contributed to a competitor project.
- There is also a lifetime COI for the family members, business partners, and thesis student/advisor or mentor.
## Conflict of Interest for Reviews and Editors

Following criteria are meant to be a guide for what constitutes a conflict of
interest (COI) for an editor or reviewer. The potential editor or reviewer has
a conflict of interest if:

- The authors with a major role are from the potential reviewer/editor’s
institution or institutional component (e.g., department).
- Within the past three years, the potential reviewer/editor has been a
collaborator or has had any other professional relationship with any person
on the package who has a major role.
- The potential reviewer/editor serves as a member of the advisory board for
the project under review.
- The potential reviewer/editor would receive a direct or indirect financial
benefit if the package is accepted.
- The potential reviewer/editor has significantly contributed to a competitor
project.
- There is also a lifetime COI for family members, business partners,
thesis students/advisors, or mentors.

In the case where none of the associate editors can serve as editor, an
external guest editor will be recruited to lead the package review.

## Review timelines and on-hold reviews
## Review Timelines and On-Hold Reviews

At any time, an author can choose to have their submission put on hold (the editor applies the `on-hold` label to the GitHub issue). The `on-hold` status will be revisited every 3 months. If after one year there has been no movement on the review, then the issue will be closed.
At any time, an author can choose to have their submission put on hold
(the editor applies the `on-hold` label to the GitHub issue). The `on-hold`
status will be revisited every 3 months. If after one year there has been
no movement on the review, the issue will be closed.

## After Acceptance: Package Ownership and Maintenance

Package authors are expected to maintain and develop their software and retain
ownership of it after acceptance into pyOpenSci, as per the peer review agreement
acknowledged upon submission. This maintenance commitment should last for at
least two years. The pyOpenSci team will not interfere with day-to-day tool
maintenance unless explicitly added as collaborators.
Package authors are expected to maintain and develop their software and
retain
ownership of it after acceptance into pyOpenSci, as per the peer review
agreement acknowledged upon submission. This maintenance commitment should
last for at least two years. The pyOpenSci team will not interfere with
day-to-day tool maintenance unless explicitly added as collaborators.

If you need to step down from maintaining your accepted pyOpenSci package, please
promptly notify the pyOpenSci Editor-in-Chief or Software Review Lead. pyOpenSci
will collaborate with you to either:
If you need to step down from maintaining your accepted pyOpenSci package,
please promptly notify the pyOpenSci Editor-in-Chief or Software Review Lead.
pyOpenSci will collaborate with you to either:

- Find a new maintainer or
- Archive the tool, depending on what best suits your specific scientific Python
package.
- Archive the tool, depending on what best suits your specific scientific
Python package.

We will reach out to our package maintainers each year to verify the package is actively maintained
and to see if there are any updates we can highlight through our social channels.
We will reach out to our package maintainers each year to verify the
package is actively maintained and to see if there are any updates we can
highlight through our social channels.

### Maintenance Tracking

pyOpenSci is building a system to track package metrics and activity, including issues, pull requests, and dates of
the last release and last commit to the package repository. Activity is defined as a repository commit, pull request or release.
pyOpenSci is building a system to track package metrics and activity,
including issues, pull requests, and dates of the last release and last commit
to the package repository. Activity is defined as a repository commit, pull
request, or release.

We will flag packages that haven't been updated within a 1 year/ 12 month time period based on activity. Packages with no activity after 12 months will be flagged. At that time, pyOpenSci editorial team member will contact the package maintainers to evaluate the maintenance status of their package.
We will flag packages that haven't been updated within a 1 year/ 12 month time
period based on activity. Packages with no activity after 12 months will be
flagged. At that time, pyOpenSci editorial team member will contact the package
maintainers to evaluate the maintenance status of their package.

(archive-process)=

## Package Maintenance and Maintainer Responsiveness
### Package Maintenance and Maintainer Responsiveness

If, after one year, package maintainers are unresponsive to requests for package
fixes or messages from the pyOpenSci team, we will initiate discussions about
the package's ongoing inclusion within the pyOpenSci ecosystem.
If, after one year, package maintainers are unresponsive to requests for
package fixes or messages from the pyOpenSci team, we will initiate
discussions about the package's ongoing inclusion within the pyOpenSci
ecosystem.

In cases where a package is heavily used by the community, we may collaborate
with the community to identify reasonable next steps, such as assisting in finding a new maintainer. If a solution for ongoing package maintenance is not found, the package will be
archived within the pyOpenSci ecosystem.
In cases where a package is heavily used by the community, we may
collaborate with the community to identify reasonable next steps, such as
assisting in finding a new maintainer. If a solution for ongoing package
maintenance is not found, the package will be archived within the pyOpenSci
ecosystem.

If a sub-community decides to fork and maintain the package, we are open to
working with the new maintainers to register the newly forked package within our ecosystem. The original package will be archived with a link to the new fork.
working with the new maintainers to register the newly forked package within
our ecosystem. The original package will be archived with a link to the new
fork.

### Quality Commitment

pyOpenSci strives to develop and promote high quality research software. To ensure that
your software meets our criteria, we review all of our submissions as part of the
Software Peer Review process. We expect that you will continue to maintain a
package that has been accepted continually.
pyOpenSci strives to develop and promote high quality research software. To
ensure that your software meets our criteria, we review all of our submissions
as part of the Software Peer Review process. We expect that you will continue
to maintain a package that has been accepted continually.

Despite our best efforts to support contributed software, errors are the responsibility
of individual maintainers. Buggy, unmaintained software may be removed from our suite at
any time. We also ask maintainers that they get in touch with us if they do need
to step down from maintaining a tool.
Despite our best efforts to support contributed software, errors are the
responsibility of individual maintainers. Buggy, unmaintained software may
be removed from our suite at any time. We also ask maintainers that they get
in touch with us if they do need to step down from maintaining a tool.

### Requesting package removal from the pyOpenSci ecosystem
### Requesting Package Removal from the pyOpenSci Ecosystem

In the unlikely scenario that a contributor of a package requests removal of their
package from our ecosystem, we retain the right offer the last / most recently released version of that package in our ecosystem for archival purposes only.
In the unlikely scenario that a contributor of a package requests removal of
their package from our ecosystem, we retain the right offer the last / most
recently released version of that package in our ecosystem for archival
purposes only.

### Archiving a Package

If a package appears to be longer maintained, we may move to mark it as archived which move the package from our [main package listing](https://www.pyopensci.org/python-packages.html#all-packages) to our [archived packaging](https://www.pyopensci.org/python-packages.html#archived-packages) listing section.

To archive a pyOpenSci approved package, ad the [archive label](https://github.com/pyOpenSci/software-submission/issues?q=label%3Aarchived) to the original review issue. Once this label is applied to the issue, the website will automatically update to reflect this status. If at any point in the future, an archived package undergoes active maintenance again, this label can be removed from the issue to move the package back to an active status.

We opt to archive inactive packages rather than remove them to preserve the history and contributions of the software, ensuring that others can still access and learn from it. This approach maintains the integrity of the scientific record and allows for potential future reactivation or forking of the project. By archiving rather than removing, we provide a clear status of the package while keeping its legacy intact for reference and educational purposes.
If a package appears to be no longer maintained, we may move to mark it as
archived which moves the package from our
[main package listing](https://www.pyopensci.org/python-packages.html#all-packages)
to our [archived packaging](https://www.pyopensci.org/python-packages.html#archived-packages)
listing section.

To archive a pyOpenSci approved package, add the
[archive label](https://github.com/pyOpenSci/software-submission/issues?q=label%3Aarchived)
to the original review issue. Once this label is applied to the issue, the
website will automatically update to reflect this status. If at any point
in the future, an archived package undergoes active maintenance again, this
label can be removed from the issue to move the package back to an active
status.

We opt to archive inactive packages rather than remove them to preserve the
history and contributions of the software, ensuring that others can still
access and learn from it. This approach maintains the integrity of the
scientific record and allows for potential future reactivation or forking
of the project. By archiving rather than removing, we provide a clear
status of the package while keeping its legacy intact for reference and
educational purposes.