Rescience also does everything throught github: http://rescience.github.io/
On 18 October 2016 at 15:29, Robert M. Flight wrote:
> You could definitely do the private thing on Gitlab, but if I were going to
> do something like this I would go with completely open review.
>
> The push journal soun
You could definitely do the private thing on Gitlab, but if I were going to
do something like this I would go with completely open review.
The push journal sounds similar, where submissions were managed by GitHub
http://push.cwcon.org
Robert
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 6:22 PM Noam Ross wrote:
> We
We've been running rOpenSc package submissions in a similar way for a
couple of years and JOSS's process is derived from ours. The main
difference is (1) reviews are not anonymous, but public, so no temporary
accounts are created or needed, and (2) in our case the author's repo is
merged in after
Hi Damien; thanks for your mail. We were semi-inspired by JOSS, but if
I understand correctly, all of its reviews are world-readable and the
reviewers' identities are public (can someone please confirm both
points?). We're wondering if anyone's used a workflow that leverages
GitHub but keeps
Hi Greg,
I'm pretty sure that the Journal of Open Source Software runs its entire
review process through GitHub. (Although I'm not sure how many of your dot
points their process covers.)
http://joss.theoj.org/
There are a number of Software Carpentry people involved with that journal.
Cheers,
D
