[REVIEW]: DisjunctiveProgramming.jl: Generalized Disjunctive Programming Models and Algorithms for JuMP

whedon commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@hdavid16<!--end-author-handle-- (Hector Perez) Repository: https://github.com/hdavid16/DisjunctiveProgramming.jl Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v0.4.1 Editor: Reviewers: @sbolusani, @joaquimg, @joaquimg Archive:

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/569beb65dae7d35e1ccf220df54e8a1c"><img src="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/569beb65dae7d35e1ccf220df54e8a1c/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/569beb65dae7d35e1ccf220df54e8a1c/status.svg)](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/569beb65dae7d35e1ccf220df54e8a1c)

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

@sbolusani & @joaquimg, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

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

Review checklist for @sbolusani

Conflict of interest

[ ] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JuliaCon conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

[ ] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JuliaCon code of conduct.

General checks

[ ] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
[ ] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[ ] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@hdavid16) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

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 function 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

Paper format

[ ] Authors: Does the paper.tex file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[ ] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[ ] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
[ ] Page limit: Is the page limit for full papers respected by the submitted document?

Content

[ ] Context: is the scientific context motivating the work correctly presented?
[ ] Methodology: is the approach taken in the work justified, presented with enough details and reference to reproduce it?
[ ] Results: are the results presented and compared to approaches with similar goals?

Review checklist for @joaquimg

Conflict of interest
[x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JuliaCon conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JuliaCon code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@hdavid16) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] 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

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
[x] 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

Paper format

[x] Authors: Does the paper.tex file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
[x] Page limit: Is the page limit for full papers respected by the submitted document?

Content

[x] Context: is the scientific context motivating the work correctly presented?
[x] Methodology: is the approach taken in the work justified, presented with enough details and reference to reproduce it?
[x] Results: are the results presented and compared to approaches with similar goals?

whedon commented 6 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-642-11503-5_12 is OK
- 10.1007/s12532-017-0130-5 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-00148-3 is OK
- 10.1016/s0098-1354(98)00293-2 is OK
- 10.1287/ijoc.2015.0669 is OK
- 10.1007/978-0-387-74759-0_348 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2014.03.014 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4613-0215-5_8 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-68928-5 is OK
- 10.1007/s12532-011-0026-8 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-0-323-95879-0.50141-7 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2021.107616 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2022.107856 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cherd.2022.08.027 is OK
- 10.1002/9780470400531.eorms0537 is OK
- 10.1007/11527695_15 is OK
- 10.1137/15M1020575 is OK
- 10.1137/15M1020575 is OK
- 10.3390/pr7110839 is OK
- 10.1002/aic.14088 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-00148-3 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2015.02.013 is OK
- 10.1016/S0098-1354(00)00581-0 is OK
- 10.1002/9781118627372 is OK
- 10.1023/a:1025154322278 is OK
- 10.1007/s10589-020-00176-0 is OK
- 10.1145/3511528.3511535 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2005.04.004 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2202.05198 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1510.01791 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon commented 6 months ago

:wave: @JuliaCon/jcon-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-papers/pull/74

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-papers/pull/74, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

matbesancon commented 6 months ago

@whedon commands

whedon commented 6 months ago

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List all of Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# Assign a GitHub user as the sole reviewer of this submission
@whedon assign @username as reviewer

# Add a GitHub user to the reviewers of this submission
@whedon add @username as reviewer

# Re-invite a reviewer (if they can't update checklists)
@whedon re-invite @username as reviewer

# Remove a GitHub user from the reviewers of this submission
@whedon remove @username as reviewer

# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors

# List of reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers

# Change editorial assignment
@whedon assign @username as editor

# Set the software archive DOI at the top of the issue e.g.
@whedon set 10.0000/zenodo.00000 as archive

# Set the software version at the top of the issue e.g.
@whedon set v1.0.1 as version

# Open the review issue
@whedon start review

EDITORIAL TASKS

# All commands can be run on a non-default branch, to do this pass a custom 
# branch name by following the command with `from branch custom-branch-name`.
# For example:

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf

# Compile the paper from alternative branch
@whedon generate pdf from branch custom-branch-name

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

# Ask Whedon to do a dry run of accepting the paper and depositing with Crossref
@whedon recommend-accept

# Ask Whedon to check the references for missing DOIs
@whedon check references

# Ask Whedon to check repository statistics for the submitted software
@whedon check repository

EiC TASKS

# Invite an editor to edit a submission (sending them an email)
@whedon invite @editor as editor

# Reject a paper
@whedon reject

# Withdraw a paper
@whedon withdraw

# Ask Whedon to actually accept the paper and deposit with Crossref
@whedon accept deposit=true

matbesancon commented 6 months ago

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon commented 6 months ago

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

whedon commented 6 months ago

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

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-papers/pull/75
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/jcon.00117
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

matbesancon commented 6 months ago

congratulations @hdavid16 !

whedon commented 6 months ago

:tada::tada::tada: Congratulations on your paper acceptance! :tada::tada::tada:

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

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/10.21105/jcon.00117/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/jcon.00117)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/jcon.00117">
  <img src="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/10.21105/jcon.00117/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/10.21105/jcon.00117/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/jcon.00117

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

JuliaCon Proceedings 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://forms.gle/yANMe4c9YmuW9MWcA
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.salsalabs.org/donate-to-jcon

JuliaCon / proceedings-review