rebase 4

appendices/editor-in-chief-checks.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+```markdown
+## Editor in Chief checks 
+
+Hi there! Thank you for submitting your package for pyOpenSci
+review. Below are the basic checks that your package needs to pass 
+to begin our review. If some of these are missing, we will ask you 
+to work on them before the review process begins. 
+
+- [ ] **Fit**: The package meets criteria for [fit](https://www.pyopensci.org/peer-review-guide/about-peer-review/aims-and-scope.html#package-scope) and [overlap](https://www.pyopensci.org/peer-review-guide/about-peer-review/aims-and-scope.html#package-overlap).
+- [ ] **Documentation** The package has sufficient documentation available online (README, sphinx docs) to allow us to evaluate package function and scope *without installing the package*. This includes:
+  - [ ] tutorials or vignettes that help a user understand how to use the package and what it can do for them (often these have a name like "Getting started")
+  - [ ] API documentation - this includes clearly written doc strings with variables defined using a standard docstring format
+  - [ ] README that clearly articulates the function of the package
+  - [ ] Contributing documentation that details how to install a development environment and how to contribute to the package
+- [ ] **Issue Submission Documentation**: All of the information is filled out in the `YAML` header of the issue (located at the top of the issue template).
+- [ ] **Automated tests:** Package has a testing suite and is tested via GitHub actions or another Continuous Integration service.
+- [ ] **License:** The package has an [OSI approved license](https://opensource.org/licenses)
+- [ ] **Repository:** The repository link resolves correctly
+- [ ] **README:** The package has a README with clear explanation of what the package does and instructions on how to install it along with development instructions. 
+- [ ] **Contributing statement:** The package has a contributing.md file that details how to contribute to the package. 
+- [ ] **Package overlap:** That package doesn't fully overlap with functionality of other packages that have already been submitted to pyOpenSci
+- [ ] **Archive** (JOSS only, may be post-review): The repository DOI resolves correctly
+- [ ] **Version** (JOSS only, may be post-review): Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.0)?
+
+---
+- [ ] [Initial onboarding survey was filled out ](https://forms.gle/F9mou7S3jhe8DMJ16) 
+We appreciate each maintainer of the package filling out this survey individually. :raised_hands: 
+Thank you authors in advance for setting aside five to ten minutes to do this. It truly helps our organization. :raised_hands:
+---
+
+*******
+
+## Editor comments
+
+
+```

index.md

@@ -123,13 +123,17 @@ Code of Conduct <about-peer-review/code-of-conduct>
 :hidden:
 :caption: Peer Review Guides
 
+<<<<<<< HEAD
 Peer review process overview <software-peer-review-guide/intro>
+=======
+Peer Review Timeline <software-peer-review-guide/intro>
+>>>>>>> 679de3a (Final cleanup)
 Author Guide <software-peer-review-guide/author-guide>
 Reviewer Guide <software-peer-review-guide/reviewer-guide>
 Editor Guide <software-peer-review-guide/editors-guide>
 Editor in Chief Guide <software-peer-review-guide/editor-in-chief-guide>
-Onboarding Guide <software-peer-review-guide/onboarding-guide>
-Where to Find Reviewers <software-peer-review-guide/where-to-find-python-package-reviewers>
+Onboarding Editors & Reviewers <software-peer-review-guide/onboarding-guide>
+Finding Reviewers <software-peer-review-guide/where-to-find-python-package-reviewers>
 ```
 
 ```{toctree}

software-peer-review-guide/editor-in-chief-guide.md

@@ -40,101 +40,78 @@ the scope and readiness of a package to be reviewed, they may opt to assign an e
 
 When a new package is submitted for review, the Editor in Chief will:
 
-### 1. ✅ Tag the issue with `1/editor-checks` tag in GitHub
+### 1. ✔️ Tag the issue with `1/editor-checks` tag in GitHub
 
-### 2. ✅ Next, they will use the {ref}`template <editor-checklist-template>` below in the issue 
+### 2. ✔️ Add the editor checks to the issue 
 
-This step serves to check whether the package has 
-the bare minimum requirements to initiate a review (or they will assign that task to an editor as stated above). 
-These checks ensure that the package is ready to be reviewed.
+Copy the {ref}`template below <editor-checklist-template>` 
+and add it to the issue. 
 
-Following this step will ensure that we are using our volunteer reviewer time effectively.
+Editor checks ensure that the package has 
+the bare minimum requirements to initiate a review.
+We hope that even the process of going through these checks will 
+improve the quality of the package. 
 
-In some situations, these checks may be passed down to an editor including:
+In some situations, the editor-in-chief initial checks may be passed down to an editor as follows:
 
 * If the Editor in Chief is overwhelmed with package submissions to evaluate 
 * If the Editor in Chief simply is busy at the time and needs support with checks 
 * If the Editor in Chief thinks that the checks might be better served if done by an Editor 
 (For instance if a specific domain or technical expertise would support more effective checks)
 
-
 (editor-checklist-template)=
-### Editor checklist (copy template below to use in the issue)
-
-```markdown
-## Editor in Chief checks 
-
-Hi there! Thank you for submitting your package for pyOpenSci
-review. Below are the basic checks that your package needs to pass 
-to begin our review. If some of these are missing, we will ask you 
-to work on them before the review process begins. 
-
-- [ ] **Fit**: The package meets criteria for [fit](https://www.pyopensci.org/peer-review-guide/about-peer-review/aims-and-scope.html#package-scope) and [overlap](https://www.pyopensci.org/peer-review-guide/about-peer-review/aims-and-scope.html#package-overlap).
-- [ ] **Documentation** The package has sufficient documentation available online (README, sphinx docs) to allow us to evaluate package function and scope *without installing the package*. This includes:
-  - [ ] tutorials or vignettes that help a user understand how to use the package and what it can do for them (often these have a name like "Getting started")
-  - [ ] API documentation - this includes clearly written doc strings with variables defined using a standard docstring format
-  - [ ] README that clearly articulates the function of the package
-  - [ ] Contributing documentation that details how to install a development environment and how to contribute to the package
-- [ ] **Issue Submission Documentation**: All of the information is filled out in the `YAML` header of the issue (located at the top of the issue template).
-- [ ] **Automated tests:** Package has a testing suite and is tested via GitHub actions or another Continuous Integration service.
-- [ ] **License:** The package has an [OSI approved license](https://opensource.org/licenses)
-- [ ] **Repository:** The repository link resolves correctly
-- [ ] **README:** The package has a README with clear explanation of what the package does and instructions on how to install it along with development instructions. 
-- [ ] **Contributing statement:** The package has a contributing.md file that details how to contribute to the package. 
-- [ ] **Package overlap:** That package doesn't fully overlap with functionality of other packages that have already been submitted to pyOpenSci
-- [ ] **Archive** (JOSS only, may be post-review): The repository DOI resolves correctly
-- [ ] **Version** (JOSS only, may be post-review): Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.0)?
-
----
-- [ ] [Initial onboarding survey was filled out ](https://forms.gle/F9mou7S3jhe8DMJ16) 
-We appreciate each maintainer of the package filling out this survey individually. :raised_hands: 
-Thank you authors in advance for setting aside five to ten minutes to do this. It truly helps our organization. :raised_hands:
----
-
-*******
-
-## Editor comments
+### Editor-in-chief checklist 
 
+Copy the template below to use it in the issue.
 
+```{include} ../appendices/editor-in-chief-checks.md
 ```
 
-### 3. ✅ Finally they will ensure the onboarding survey is filled out. 
+### 3. ✔️ Ensure that the package onboarding survey is filled out. 
 
-Thank the authors graciously for doing this. They can skip sections of it if they wish, but we do need their contact information and we do want to track their experience with our review process and organization. 
+Thank the authors graciously for filling our our survey. They can 
+skip sections of it if they wish. We do need their contact 
+information to stay in touch about package maintenance. We also 
+want to track their experience with our review process and 
+organization. 
 
-### 4. ✅ Assign an editor to the issue to manage the rest of the review
+### 4. ✔️ Assign an editor to the issue to manage the rest of the review
 
 Once the package initial checks are complete, and it is determined that 
 the package is in scope for pyOpenSci review, the Editor in Chief will assign an 
 editor to the review issue. The editor will begin the process of finding reviewers 
 for the package. [Check out the editor guide for more information on this process](editors-guide.md) 
 
-### 5. ✅ Update the YAML header of the issue 
+### 5. ✔️ Update the YAML header of the issue 
 
 Once all of the above is complete, the Editor in Chief should:
 
-- Add any comments to the bottom of your editor checks comment
-- Update the yaml in the header of the issue with the editor assigned to the review 
-- Add the tag `2/seeking-reviewer(s)` to the issue.
+* Add any comments to the bottom of your editor checks comment
+* Update the yaml in the header of the issue with the editor assigned to the review 
+* Add the tag `2/seeking-reviewer(s)` to the issue.
+
+## A note about submissions that are incomplete or vague
+
+In some cases:
 
-## A Note about submissions that are incomplete or vague
+* online documentation of a package is sparse, 
+* the README is minimal or hard to understand or 
+* there is no clear documentation setup. 
+* elements of the YAML template at the top of the issue are not filled out. 
 
-In some cases online documentation of a package is sparse, the README is 
-minimal or hard to understand or there is no clear documentation setup. Or 
-in other cases some of the YAML at the top of the issue is missing. 
 This makes assessment of the package's scope much harder. 
-In this case, please ask for more information. Even if the package is deemed
+In this case, please ask the author for more information. Even if the package is deemed
 out-of-scope, the package documentation will improve as a result of your questions. 
 
-Example text
+Example text:
 
 ```markdown
 Hello <username> and many thanks for your submission.
 
 We are discussing whether the package is in scope and need a bit more 
 information.
 
-Would you mind adding more details and context to your `README` file?
+Please add more details and context to your `README` file.
 After reading it, someone with little domain knowledge should understand 
 the aim, goals and functionality of the package.
 
@@ -145,8 +122,9 @@ to mention in your documentation (README) and in this issue [how it is "best in
 
 ```
 
-### Responding to out-of-scope submissions
+## Responding to out-of-scope submissions
 
-If the package is determined to be out-of-scope, the Editor in Chief should thank authors for their submission,
-explain the reasons for the decision, and direct them to other publication venues 
-if relevant. If further discussion is warranted that can take place within the issue. 
+If the package is determined to be out-of-scope, the Editor in Chief should 
+thank authors for their submission, explain the reasons for the decision, and 
+direct them to other publication venues if relevant. If further discussion is 
+warranted that can take place within the issue. 

software-peer-review-guide/editors-guide.md

@@ -1,13 +1,13 @@
 # pyOpenSci Guide for Peer Review Editors
 
-
+<!-- 
 ```{note}
 PyOpenSci has a partnership with JOSS where packages that are in-scope for JOSS
 can be directly accepted into the JOSS ecosystem through the pyOpenSci review.
 The JOSS component of the review happens after all of the review on the
 pyOpenSci side is complete and it begins through direct communication with a
 JOSS editor.
-```
+``` -->
 
 Thank you for your time in serving as an editor for a PyOpenSci package! Below you will find some
 information about the role that editors have in the