[REVIEW]: SonoUno development: a User Centred Sonification software for data analysis

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @johicasado (Johanna Casado)
Repository: https://github.com/sonoUnoTeam/sonoUno-desktop
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): master
Version: 4.1.1
Editor: @ivastar
Reviewers: @ceb8, @james-trayford
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10303871

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3de1d3d23f457171356cb8b87fab8e8d"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3de1d3d23f457171356cb8b87fab8e8d/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3de1d3d23f457171356cb8b87fab8e8d/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3de1d3d23f457171356cb8b87fab8e8d)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@ceb8 & @james-trayford, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @ivastar know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @ceb8

📝 Checklist for @james-trayford

[editorialbot]

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

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

@editorialbot commands

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

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.14 s (102.1 files/s, 68931.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          10            882           1853           6279
TeX                              1             20              0            184
Markdown                         2             66              0            144
YAML                             1              1              5             19
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            14            969           1858           6626
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1903

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1017/S1743921321000272 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-77411-0_12 is OK
- 10.4018/jitr.2014010105 is OK
- 10.4018/IJCICG.2021010102 is OK
- 10.4018/978-1-5225-8539-8.ch002 is OK
- 10.21785/icad2021.031 is OK
- 10.1145/3136755.3136783 is OK
- 10.1051/epjconf/201920001013 is OK
- 10.4018/IJSKD.299048 is OK
- 10.11648/j.ajaa.20210904.11 is OK
- 10.1038/s41550-022-01721-z is OK
- 10.22201/ia.14052059p.2022.54.01 is OK
- 10.1093/astrogeo/atac027 is OK
- 10.1017/S174392132100079X is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[ivastar]

@ceb8, @james-trayford thank you for agreeing to review this submission! Check out the comment above for instructions on how to generate your checklist. We are looking for reviews to be completed ~ the end of September. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any issues.

[ceb8]

Review checklist for @ceb8

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) 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.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/sonoUnoTeam/sonoUno-desktop?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@johicasado) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• A statement of need: 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: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• 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?

[james-trayford]

Review checklist for @james-trayford

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) 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.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/sonoUnoTeam/sonoUno-desktop?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@johicasado) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• A statement of need: 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: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• 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?

[ivastar]

@ceb8 @james-trayford could we please look at wrapping the review in the next week or so? Let me know if there's anything I can help with.

[james-trayford]

@ivastar Yes definitely reasonable I think - I had to defer reviewing until this week due to unforeseen circumstances (hopefully you received my email)

[ivastar]

@james-trayford yes, I did, thank you for the heads up! Just pinging everyone here for visibility of the authors as well.

[james-trayford]

@johicasado I enjoyed exploring sonoUno and it's functionality, and think it represents a valuable tool in providing accessible sonification of 1D data (in the pitch-mapping tradition) for research applications. I congratulate the developers on their work and hope that the comments are constructive towards the future development of the code! I think the code works as represented in the submission and there are a few relatively minor things to complete the checklist.

I opened a related Issue here: sonoUnoTeam/sonoUno-desktop#11

With some small code suggestions in the PR sonoUnoTeam/sonoUno-desktop#10

My checklist quoted below with some explanations (@ivastar I was unsure if the check means that I have considered that aspect or that aspect has been deemed to already be met by the submission, have assumed the latter)

Review checklist for @james-trayford

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) 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.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/sonoUnoTeam/sonoUno-desktop?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?

I noticed that the current MIT license includes some extra text, I've included that in the PR sonoUnoTeam/sonoUno-desktop#10

• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@johicasado) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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).

it would be good to package the SDSS example data with the code - I had problems with the SDSS server while going through instructions which meant I couldn't proceed. If this is included in the sample data, that could make things more convenient

• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?

The User guide document could use some proofreading, but is fully comprehensible. Perhaps some more extension on the Octave functionality or pointing to external relevant octave documentation would be helpful.

• 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

I think more or less covered, but it might be good to make these three more explicit in e.g. the README

Software paper

• Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• A statement of need: 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: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• 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?

The paper is clear and addresses all of these points in my opinion. One thing I think could be improved is mentioning some other codes that have emerged for sonification (e.g. astronify, strauss, starsound, and Desmos sonification capabilities) explicitly to better clarify how it fits into the software landscape and emphasise the unique aspects of sonoUno. I would think a unique aspect of sonoUno is the combination of being a dedicated GUI-based FOSS and platform independent python code, with the user centered design mentioned already.

[ivastar]

My checklist quoted below with some explanations (@ivastar I was unsure if the check means that I have considered that aspect or that aspect has been deemed to already be met by the submission, have assumed the latter)

@james-trayford, yes, this assumption is correct: a check means that the submission meets the requirements

[johicasado]

@james-trayford thank you very much for all your comments! I will go through the GitHub Issues shortly, thank you!

[ivastar]

@ceb8 a gentle reminder to complete the review. Thanks!

[ceb8]

@johicasado This is clearly represents substantial effort and is a valuable contribution to the sonification landscape.

I have only minor comments which I intersperse with the relevant checklist items below.

Review checklist for @ceb8

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) 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.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/sonoUnoTeam/sonoUno-desktop?

• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?

• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@johicasado) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.

• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.

• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?

I first installed sonoUno from pip, however that version threw an error, so instead I installed from source which worked perfectly well. Perhaps this means a new pip release is in order.

• Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?

A few things I noticed:

• I couldn't really detect a difference between the discrete and continuous sound options, perhaps the continuous notes were a little longer.
• For large data files even the fastest tempo went through the data quite slowly
• When you make a bunch of panels visible it sometimes causes the layout to do strange things and overlap panels
• Two things that might be because I fed in bad data (see discussion of the requirements on the x-axis below)
  • When you switch the x/y columns weird things can happen, i.e for sinsoidal_copia it plays about 3/4 of the way through, then stops playing sounds while the plot x-axis continually expands to the left
  • The abscissa position goes weird when the data is not sorted on the x-axis column

• 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).

While everything (installation instructions, user manual, github repo) is nicely linked from the sonoUno website, the website is not mentioned in the GitHub repo. I would be good to include that prominently, right at the top of the README file. Similarly after the installation instructions in the README it would be good to have a link to the user manual before diving into the bash mode instructions.

Also when the website is mentioned in the user manual itself the URL is not included (or at least in the English version, which was the one I looked at), and should be.

• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?

I don't know what this statement means:

“In the files to import the first column must have continuous values, it is used as a coordinate dependent axis.”

I think it means that the first column needs to be monotonically increasing or decreasing, but it could do with clarification. And if it does mean what I think then either the file(s) that do not conform to this format in the sample_data directory should be removed (sinsoidal_copia is the one I found), or there should be some explanation of the purpose of those example files.

• Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?

The user manual provides much of this functionality, but there are a few holes:

• The average mathematical function is not sufficiently explained, it seems to map the data onto the 0-1 range, and is clearly not a rolling average, but how exactly it is implemented is not clear.
• It's not entirely clear what should happen when bad data is fed into the software

• 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

In the documentation it indicates that users should communicate any issues to the development team (start of section 2), it would be good to include specific instructions on how.

Software paper

• Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?

• A statement of need: 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: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?

• 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?

[ivastar]

@ceb8 thank you for the detailed review! @johicasado please let me know when you have been able to address the comments.

[johicasado]

@ceb8 Thank you very much for all your comments! I'll try to implement most of them shortly!

@ivastar Thank you very much for all!

[johicasado]

@ivastar How will we continue the review process? I have already started with the documentation to implement the recommendations. Do I have to indicate here the updates that solve the recommendations? or do I have to open an issue on GitHub?

[ivastar]

@johicasado you can make all changes to the library, documentation and paper and commit them to the repository. This will allow us to generate a new manuscript here. You don't have to open a new issue. Once the changes are made, please let us know here. The reviewers and I will check the changes.

[johicasado]

@ivastar Thank you very much! I will let you know shortly!

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1017/S1743921321000272 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-77411-0_12 is OK
- 10.4018/jitr.2014010105 is OK
- 10.21785/icad2023.2124 is OK
- 10.4018/IJCICG.2021010102 is OK
- 10.4018/978-1-5225-8539-8.ch002 is OK
- 10.21785/icad2021.031 is OK
- 10.1145/3136755.3136783 is OK
- 10.1051/epjconf/201920001013 is OK
- 10.4018/IJSKD.299048 is OK
- 10.11648/j.ajaa.20210904.11 is OK
- 10.1038/s41550-022-01721-z is OK
- 10.22201/ia.14052059p.2022.54.01 is OK
- 10.1093/astrogeo/atac027 is OK
- 10.1017/S174392132100079X is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[ivastar]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[ivastar]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1017/S1743921321000272 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-77411-0_12 is OK
- 10.4018/jitr.2014010105 is OK
- 10.21785/icad2023.2124 is OK
- 10.4018/IJCICG.2021010102 is OK
- 10.4018/978-1-5225-8539-8.ch002 is OK
- 10.21785/icad2021.031 is OK
- 10.1145/3136755.3136783 is OK
- 10.1051/epjconf/201920001013 is OK
- 10.4018/IJSKD.299048 is OK
- 10.11648/j.ajaa.20210904.11 is OK
- 10.1038/s41550-022-01721-z is OK
- 10.22201/ia.14052059p.2022.54.01 is OK
- 10.1093/astrogeo/atac027 is OK
- 10.1017/S174392132100079X is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[ivastar]

@johicasado can you please update the Zenodo release with the latest version of the paper? Not sure if we need a new tag too.

[johicasado]

@ivastar yes, the new tag is 4.1.1
Zenodo is updated now.

[ivastar]

@editorialbot set 4.1.1 as version

[editorialbot]

Done! version is now 4.1.1

[ivastar]

@editorialbot recommend accept

[editorialbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

[ivastar]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @ivastar, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Add to this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot add @username as reviewer

# Remove from this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot remove @username from reviewers

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Assign a user as the editor of this submission
@editorialbot assign @username as editor

# Remove the editor assigned to this submission
@editorialbot remove editor

# Remind an author, a reviewer or the editor to return to a review after a 
# certain period of time (supported units days and weeks)
@editorialbot remind @reviewer in 2 weeks

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for version
@editorialbot set v1.0.0 as version

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Set a value for repository
@editorialbot set https://github.com/organization/repo as repository

# Set a value for the archive DOI
@editorialbot set set 10.5281/zenodo.6861996 as archive

# Mention the EiCs for the correct track
@editorialbot ping track-eic

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Recommends the submission for acceptance
@editorialbot recommend-accept

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Flag submission with questionable scope
@editorialbot query scope

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

# Creates a post-review checklist with editor and authors tasks
@editorialbot create post-review checklist

# Open the review issue
@editorialbot start review

[ivastar]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1017/S1743921321000272 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-77411-0_12 is OK
- 10.4018/jitr.2014010105 is OK
- 10.21785/icad2023.2124 is OK
- 10.4018/IJCICG.2021010102 is OK
- 10.4018/978-1-5225-8539-8.ch002 is OK
- 10.21785/icad2021.031 is OK
- 10.1145/3136755.3136783 is OK
- 10.1051/epjconf/201920001013 is OK
- 10.4018/IJSKD.299048 is OK
- 10.11648/j.ajaa.20210904.11 is OK
- 10.1038/s41550-022-01721-z is OK
- 10.22201/ia.14052059p.2022.54.01 is OK
- 10.1093/astrogeo/atac027 is OK
- 10.1017/S174392132100079X is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👋 @openjournals/aass-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#4941, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[dfm]

@editorialbot accept

[editorialbot]

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Casado
  given-names: Johanna
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9528-5034"
- family-names: Vega
  given-names: Gonzalo
  name-particle: de la
- family-names: García
  given-names: Beatriz
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0919-2734"
contact:
- family-names: Casado
  given-names: Johanna
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9528-5034"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10303871
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Casado
    given-names: Johanna
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9528-5034"
  - family-names: Vega
    given-names: Gonzalo
    name-particle: de la
  - family-names: García
    given-names: Beatriz
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0919-2734"
  date-published: 2024-01-24
  doi: 10.21105/joss.05819
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 93
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 5819
  title: "SonoUno development: a User-Centered Sonification software for
    data analysis"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05819"
  volume: 9
title: "SonoUno development: a User-Centered Sonification software for
  data analysis"

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

[editorialbot]

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

[editorialbot]

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.05819 joss-papers#4946
1. Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05819
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

[dfm]

Many thanks to @ceb8 and @james-trayford for reviewing and to @ivastar for editing! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you!!

@johicasado — Your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS! ⚡🚀💥

[editorialbot]

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05819/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05819)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05819">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05819/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05819/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05819

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

• Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

[johicasado]

@dfm Thank you very much!

@ivastar @ceb8 @james-trayford I'm grateful for your time and help to make it possible! Regards!