[PRE REVIEW]: rtweet: Collecting and analyzing Twitter data

[whedon]

Submitting author: @mkearney (Michael Wayne Kearney)
Repository: https://github.com/ropensci/rtweet
Version: v0.7.0
Editor: @kthyng
Reviewers: @kthyng

Author instructions

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

@mkearney if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

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

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf

What happens now?

This submission is currently in a pre-review state which means we are waiting for an editor to be assigned and for them to find some reviewers for your submission. This may take anything between a few hours to a couple of weeks. Thanks for your patience 😸

You can help the editor by looking at this list of potential reviewers to identify individuals who might be able to review your submission (please start at the bottom of the list). Also, feel free to suggest individuals who are not on this list by mentioning their GitHub handles here.

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

[kthyng]

Hi @arokem! Would you be willing to edit this submission? Thanks in advance.

[mkearney]

This package has been reviewed by rOpenSci: ropensci/software-review#302, @sckott

[whedon]

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

[mkearney]

@whedon check references

[whedon]

Attempting to check references...

[whedon]

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.2528481 is OK
- 10.5210/fm.v23i12.9540 is OK
- 10.1080/14459795.2019.1606927 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1188429 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2019.01.010 is OK
- 10.1177/1461444818822813 is OK
- 10.3389/fphy.2019.00098 is OK
- 10.1177/2055207618821521 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jvacx.2019.100019 is OK
- 10.1177/1461444818809392 is OK
- 10.1038/s41746-018-0017-5 is OK
- 10.1016/j.tele.2017.09.015 is OK
- 10.1007/s11036-018-1055-6 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[kthyng]

Hi @arokem! Would you be willing to edit this submission? Thanks in advance.

Just kidding, I will edit it since it is from rOpenSci.

[kthyng]

@whedon assign @kthyng as editor

[whedon]

OK, the editor is @kthyng

[kthyng]

@whedon assign @kthyng as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, the reviewer is @kthyng

[kthyng]

Hi @mkearney! Thanks for your submission. I am not familiar with rOpenSci, but in looking at your review there, I see that it is still open. Does that mean that it has not been completed yet?

[mkearney]

@kthyng The review of my submission has been completed, but they may consider the joss paper as part of the process? I know @ropensci has a history and documented workflow for submitting the accompanied paper.md, but I cannot speak to the nature or extent of the relationship between the two–for that hopefully @sckott can chime in!

[mkearney]

Nevermind, the issue has actually been closed!

[sckott]

the ropensci review is done ✅

[kthyng]

Ok great @mkearney and @sckott! I will start the review issue here now, which will be very basic.

[kthyng]

@whedon start review

[whedon]

OK, I've started the review over in #1829. Feel free to close this issue now!