feat: Add pyOpenSci as the official mechanism for reviewing scientific python packages

[xmnlab]

This PR aims to add pyOpenSci as the official mechanism for review scientific Python packages.

[xmnlab]

@lwasser when you have time, could you review this text please?

[lwasser]

It's on my list now Ivan! Thank you!

[lwasser]

Suggested change

	By following pyOpenSci's robust evaluation framework, we aim to fortify the
	quality and impact of the Scientific Python projects emerging from the Open
	Science Labs Incubator program. We encourage all projects to actively engage in
	this evaluation process to facilitate their scientific rigor and reach.
	By following pyOpenSci's robust evaluation framework, we aim to fortify the
	quality and impact of the Scientific Python projects emerging from the Open
	Science Labs Incubator program. We encourage all projects to actively engage in
	this evaluation process to facilitate their scientific rigor and reach.

i need to think about this a bit but i wonder if you want to use more relaxed language here?

something like

• the pyOpenSci review process will support improving the quality, usability and maintainability of your software.
• you can also benefit from visibility which your tool will gain once accepted into the pyOpenSci ecosystem and also community support..

something like that? the word evaluation is interesting but i'm not sure it's quite the right word here. and i am not sure about scientific rigor in the above text as we really are generally not focused on the scientific applications rather the software as it's used for science. Although if a tool has a very specific scientific algorithm we'd call in an expert for review. the language just seems a bit different from what we actually do.

[xmnlab]

hey @lwasser , I hear you and that makes sense. I will update the text with your suggestions. thanks!

[lwasser]

ok @xmnlab i've left some comments. overall this looks good.

i want to make sure it's clear that just because we review and accept a package it could be out of scope for JOSS
and also i suggested some general adjustments to language to make sure it's inline with what we do. let me know if you have any questions! and thank you for pulling this together!

i'll work on some text on our side as well.

[xmnlab]

Thanks @lwasser !
I added all your suggestions! thank you so much, really appreciate that!