Paper structure/content

[datalad]

Paper structure/content

[yarikoptic]

I was thinking of an idea to wrap description into wikipedia like subsections making it into datalad autobiography: inception, early life, puberty, maturation, reception by public which could give reasoning for choices made etc

[mih]

I was thinking of an idea to wrap description into wikipedia like subsections making it into datalad autobiography: inception, early life, puberty, maturation, reception by public which could give reasoning for choices made etc

This would not be compliant with the spirit of such manuscripts, at least as far as me familiarity with published manuscripts and the review process goes (https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_checklist.html). I think this list here is key:

https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html#the-joss-paper

The JOSS paper (the compiled PDF associated with this submission) should only include:

• A list of the authors of the software and their affiliations.
• A summary describing the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience.
• A clear statement of need that illustrates the purpose of the software.
• A description of how this software compares to other commonly-used packages in this research area.
• Mentions (if applicable) of any ongoing research projects using the software or recent scholarly publications enabled by it.
• A list of key references including a link to the software archive.

[yarikoptic]

yes, there are required components (you listed) and it must not be a "full length paper". But usually there is extra section and often (e.g. randomly 2nd hit on current list: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03049) presentation of "how and why" any particular feature was developed. That is why I thought that chronological presentation of developments would even well fit within "A Statement of need" section after some statement of need summary: after all "the need" datalad is addressing also changed through time, and all the extensions/testing/etc was introduced not for fun but to address a need. "Mentions" is really that "Reception by public". Anyways -- just an idea ;)

[yarikoptic]

I think structure is there call to co-authors is about to be out, so I think this could be closed