Open whedon opened 1 year ago
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @Datseris, @ranocha it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper :tada:.
:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:
Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.
:star: Important :star:
If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-review) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿
To fix this do the following two things:
For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
@whedon commands
For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
@whedon generate pdf
Software report (experimental):
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.05 s (1253.8 files/s, 109376.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia 48 805 506 3568
YAML 6 13 10 172
Markdown 2 14 0 78
TOML 3 3 0 45
TeX 1 1 0 19
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 60 836 516 3882
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistical information for the repository 'f805eeb45b8dccf7eae368f6' was
gathered on 2023/03/07.
No commited files with the specified extensions were found.
PDF failed to compile for issue #125 with the following error:
Can't find any papers to compile :-(
@whedon generate pdf from branch paper
Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch paper. Reticulating splines etc...
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
The links to the conflict of interest and code of conduct policies do not work
Hmm. The links are:
@matbesancon is this normal?
Alright, I am submitting my review!
This is an excellently written paper. It clearly introduces the type of modelling it is about, why modelling this is useful for the scientific community, and why modelling this is difficult from both a technical and a conceptual viewpoint.
The paper the proceeds in explaining clearly the brilliant design of the library and its integration with OrdinaryDiffEq.jl. This is very important. To my knowledge, OrdinaryDiffEq.jl is by far the most featureful and most performant software for solving ordinary differential equations. Integrating with that brings so many benefits into the table practically "for free". The authors have employed several "tricks" to make this integration possible, such as linking caches between the ODE solver, and the DDE solver, which in fact includes the ODE solver, or employing special handling for discontinuities, which seems to be one of the hardest technical problems in DDE solving.
All in all, this is an incredible piece of work and I would highly recommend publication!
I was able to install the software with one command. I was able to run its test suite with passing tests. The test suite was very extensive, yet one more thing I found impressive. The example tutorial was clear and straightforward, and I've also run it successfully.
Pkg.add("DelayDiffEq")
".:wave: @Datseris, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
:wave: @ranocha, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
@whedon generate pdf from branch paper
Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch paper. Reticulating splines etc...
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Thanks for all the work and this manuscript. It should be published after some revisions. In addition to the comments of @Datseris above, please consider the following comments.
p
can be some parameters (that will just be ignored in this example).MethodOfSteps
as algorithm. This is quite confusing. Is there an alternative?@whedon generate pdf from branch paper
Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch paper. Reticulating splines etc...
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@ranocha @Datseris Thank you for your reviews, the positive feedback, and the valuable suggestions!
I'm currently in the final stages of writing my thesis, so it will probably take a few days until I am able to address all your comments. I'll post in this thread and reply to your comments in more details when I am done with some initial revisions.
@devmotion what's the status of this?
Hi @devmotion just checking in on this.
Hi @devmotion just checking in on this again. Let me know if you need anything.
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@devmotion<!--end-author-handle-- (David Widmann) Repository: https://github.com/SciML/DelayDiffEq.jl Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: Editor: !--editor-->@odow<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @Datseris, @ranocha Archive: Pending
Status
Status badge code:
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
@Datseris & @ranocha, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @odow 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 @Datseris
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Paper format
paper.tex
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?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?
Review checklist for @ranocha
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
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Paper format
paper.tex
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?Content