Skip to content

enh(JOSS policy): Revise JOSS discussion #342

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

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Sep 17, 2025
Merged

enh(JOSS policy): Revise JOSS discussion #342

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
97085e3
Revise JOSS discussion
eliotwrobson Sep 9, 2025
f85b395
Update policies.md
eliotwrobson Sep 11, 2025
b23a797
Update policies.md
eliotwrobson Sep 11, 2025
d029006
Update policies.md
eliotwrobson Sep 11, 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
35 changes: 28 additions & 7 deletions our-process/policies.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -44,16 +44,35 @@ already published on `PyPI` or `conda-forge`.

### 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:
If you have previously published your software package with the Journal of Open
Source Software (JOSS), you can still submit it to pyOpenSci for review. This
provides increased visibility for your package as a vetted tool within the scientific
Python ecosystem and access to our long-term maintenance support.

- 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.
Since your package has already undergone a JOSS review, we have a specific,
expedited review process to streamline the submission process and save time.

#### Expedited Review Process

We offer two pathways for packages previously reviewed by JOSS:

1. Fast-Track Review (Editor-Only):
Your package is eligible for this fast-track review if it has been published by
JOSS within the last year and has not had a major version release (e.g., v1.x to v2.0)
Copy link
Contributor

@coatless coatless Sep 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe mention semantic versioning or clarify "major version" consideration new dependencies & significant API modifications

Copy link
Contributor Author

@eliotwrobson eliotwrobson Sep 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think I'll change the language to "major changes in dependency, design, or API", since there are many packages that don't even make these changes on a new major version.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@eliotwrobson eliotwrobson Sep 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

b23a797

Copy link
Contributor

@sneakers-the-rat sneakers-the-rat Sep 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe something like "that conflict with, remove, or invalidate claims and statements made in the joss paper" or something? Adding functionality seems fine, but IG the thing that would be bad is if they stripped all the stuff that they wrote in the paper out for some reason.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@eliotwrobson eliotwrobson Sep 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not sure about others but I think the purpose is to make sure everything in an approved package goes through some kind of review (thinking of an example where a Joss package adds a large feature that's not well documented or very unintuitive).

since its JOSS publication. In this case, an editor will conduct the review by going
through our pyOpenSci submission checklist to ensure all our specific requirements are met.

2. Expedited Review (Editor + One Reviewer):
If your package's JOSS publication is over a year old or if it has had a major version release
since its JOSS publication, it will undergo an expedited review with one editor and one external reviewer.
The editor and reviewer will focus on any significant changes and ensure the package meets all current pyOpenSci
standards. This approach reduces the burden of a full review while ensuring the quality of the package
reflects its most recent version.

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.
Copy link
Contributor

@isabelizimm isabelizimm Sep 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit: should this go under the After acceptance: package ownership and maintenance heading? or, if it is here for increased visibility, maybe it can go in the top Publication with Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS) section, after this sentence:

This provides increased visibility for your package as a vetted tool within the scientific
Python ecosystem and access to our long-term maintenance support.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@eliotwrobson eliotwrobson Sep 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Removed this line since it's redundant with the rest of the description in this page: f85b395

Copy link

@jonas-eschle jonas-eschle Sep 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We will also keep in touch with you as a maintainer to support long-term maintenance.

Isn't this rather general? Or is this specific to software also published in JOSS?

Copy link
Contributor

@banesullivan banesullivan Sep 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I had this thought too. Is this the case for any packages reviewed by pyopensci?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@eliotwrobson eliotwrobson Sep 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is the case for every package accepted by pyOS. I'll go ahead and removed this since another comment pointed out that the placement isn't great (it should be clear from the statement above that it is being accepted as any other pyOS package).

Copy link
Contributor Author

@eliotwrobson eliotwrobson Sep 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

f85b395


(coi)=

## Conflict of interest for reviews and editors

Following criteria are meant to be a guide for what constitutes a conflict of
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -85,6 +104,7 @@ status will be revisited every 3 months. If after one year there has been
no movement on the review, the issue will be closed.

(post-review-process)=

## After acceptance: package ownership and maintenance

Package authors are expected to maintain and develop their software and
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -120,6 +140,7 @@ 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

If, after one year, package maintainers are unresponsive to requests for
Expand Down
Loading