# Review checklist

JOSS reviews are checklist-driven. That is, there is a checklist for each JOSS reviewer to work through when completing their review. A JOSS review is generally considered incomplete until the reviewer has checked off all of their checkboxes.

Below is an example of the review checklist for the [Yellowbrick JOSS submission](https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/1075).


```{important} 
Note this section of our documentation only describes the JOSS review checklist. Authors and reviewers should consult the [review criteria](review_criteria) to better understand how these checklist items should be interpreted.
```
## Conflict of interest

- I confirm that I have read the [JOSS conflict of interest policy](reviewer_guidelines.md#joss-conflict-of-interest-policy) and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

## Code of Conduct

- I confirm that I read and will adhere to the [JOSS code of conduct](https://joss.theoj.org/about#code_of_conduct).

## General checks

- **Repository:** Is the source code for this software available at the <a target="_blank" href="https://github.com/DistrictDataLabs/yellowbrick">repository url</a>?
- **License:** Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an [OSI approved](https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical) software license?
- **Contribution and authorship:** Has the submitting author made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
- **Scope and significance:** Does this submission demonstrate clear research impact or credible scholarly significance as described in the [JOSS guidelines](https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html)?

## Development history and open-source practice

- **Development timeline:** Does the project show evidence of sustained development over time (preferably months or years) rather than rapid, recent code generation?
- **Open development:** Was the software developed openly from early stages? For projects with recent public repositories, is there at least six months of public development history with evidence of releases, public issues/pull requests, and ideally external engagement?
- **Collaborative effort:** Does the project show evidence of community engagement such as contributions from multiple developers, issues/discussions from external users, or community influence on the development described in the paper?
- **Good practices:** Does the project follow good open-source practices (license, documentation, tests and/or verification processes, releases, and clear contribution/support pathways)?

## Functionality

- **Installation:** Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
- **Functionality:** Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
- **Performance:** If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

## Documentation

- **A statement of need:** Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
- **Installation instructions:** Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
- **Example usage:** Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
- **Functionality documentation:** Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
- **Automated tests:** Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
- **Community guidelines:** Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

## Software paper

- **Summary (required section):** Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
- **Statement of need (required section):** Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
- **State of the field (required section):** Does the paper include a "state of the field" section that describes how this software compares to other commonly-used packages? If related tools exist, do they provide a clear "build vs. contribute" justification explaining their unique scholarly contribution and why alternatives are insufficient?
- **Software design (required section):** Does the paper include a "software design" section that explains the trade-offs weighed, the design/architecture chosen, and why it matters? Is the content compelling and does it demonstrate meaningful design thinking?
- **Research impact statement (required section):** Does the paper include a "research impact statement" section providing evidence of realized impact (publications, external use, integrations) or credible near-term significance (benchmarks, reproducible materials, community-readiness signals)? Is the evidence presented compelling?
- **AI usage disclosure (required section):** Does the paper include an "AI usage disclosure" section that transparently discloses any use of generative AI in the software creation, documentation, or paper authoring?
- **Quality of writing:** Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
- **References:** Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper [citation syntax]( https://rmarkdown.rstudio.com/authoring_bibliographies_and_citations.html#citation_syntax)?
