---
# System prepended metadata

title: February 18th Meeting
tags: [Templates, Meeting]

---

February 18th Meeting
===

###### tags: `Templates` `Meeting`

:::info
- **Location:** Zoom
- **Date:** Feb 18, 2022 12:00 PM (EST)


:::


## Notes 

**1. The Carpentries (TC) connection! Woohoo!** 
* :point_up_2: Figure out a fast track review for these
* Capture in the metadata - capture their internal reviewers, editorial check might be all that we need? 
* How to collect metadata of review process from the carpentries lab? 
* Do we need at least one reviewer? Do a quick soft review? 
* From a tech/submission standpoint the capentries submits should still have to go through the same review process. 
* Have one of our editors go through (30-60 minutes) and review their submits
* We don't want a double standard, but we do want a quick review process since they've already been vetted
* What form would a fast track review take? 
* The editor essentially does the review, make sure there's nothing missing for our specific requirements
* The Carpentries already has a fairly robust review so makes sense to just have editor do a quick review - you assign yourself as the reviewer/editor and still go through the checklist
* Thinking about reviewers now...maybe we have The Carpentries community identify one/maybe two reviewer(s) to do a JOSE review
* In summary: for each paper in particular - when TC passes over paper they also nominate a reviewer. 
* Like the idea of adding reviewers from TC community

**2. The Intermediate Earth Analytics Online Textbook**
* https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/issues/131 
* Issue with license/it's not that thorough of a work/reviewer took a look and felt like this was too big of a project with too many errors to be reviewed and back out. What do we do? 
* Is revenue for a course a deal breaker? 
* Not really, not a criterion that would disqualify something
* It sounds like two problems (should we even review based on the license type? Given the size of the work should we review?)
* Because there is so much work needed to be done it sounds like a reject because by the end of the review it sounds like it might be a different work entirely based on the current quality of the work.
* A book should be published as a book, not a paper. A book needs an ISBN not a DOI. 
* Reject because this is a book
* :point_up_2: can self publish and get a DOI if that's what they want, but it's just out of scope for JOSE
* We just can't ask people to review textbooks
* Major issues: If it's missing a substantial part we should reject it until it comes back with major issues fixed. 
* We are in agreement that this submission should be rejected
* How do we reject graciously? Editorial team met to see if there was any way forward and unfortunately we weren't able to see a way forward with this publication. It does not appear to be the right fit for JOSE. 

**3. Non-Commercial License Policy**
* Sometimes institutions have specific types of licenses that are acceptable
* As long as it is an open-source license JOSS is agnostic to it
* Maybe adopt a policy of recommending but not requiring

**4. Editorial Bot is Changing**
* Has not hit JOSS yet
* Arfon did some webinars for JOSS editors so they are aware of changing - if he recorded we should send out to JOSE
* It's mostly the same bot, just called editorial bot instead of whedon
* The main difference is related to checklist generation for reviewers
* You don't have to be added as a collaborator anymore to make comments during review process
* Doesn't drop reviewers after two weeks of not accepting review request
* Straight forward handling of branches is also new
* Submitter can indicate branch, editorial bot then knows to check that branch for everything - Bot will remember

**5. Parting Thoughts**
* Maybe this is a time that works generally for people, so maybe we could make this a standing meeting. 
* Make this a regular (maybe third Friday of the month at 12PM)
* Maybe next step is to figure out how can we publicize JOSE a bit more - what strategies should we be thinking about? 
* Are there conferences we are going to where we can pub JOSE? 
* Bioinformatics Open Source Conference is coming up, Jason is going, would like to be able to pub
* SciPy is happening and Kyle is planning to attend, could pub JOSE there
* Create a standard blurb/slides about JOSE that we can share at these events? 
* Have a free 15/30 minutes to work on JOSE things and you aren't editing right now? Work on the blurb/slide deck in Google Slides. 
* Kyle will share Lightning talk he gave about JOSE in 2018 in Slack
* Could be a zoom meeting/authors forum/YouTube video posted somewhere? 
* There is a large space of educators that have no idea that JOSE exists and that they could be publishing here
* Should we update some sort of expectations for the editors? (every two weeks check-in on your reviewers)
* Once a month check-in is the minimum, whether it be the meeting, or a ping on slack. 
* Should also send to the groups.io

