[REVIEW]: Julia for HPC: In Situ data Analysis with Julia for Climate Simulations at Large Scale

whedon commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@ltang85@luraess<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @simonbyrne, @williamfgc Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.12104097

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/d9888b7336413fb1ab432e8d864fd6cb"><img src="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/d9888b7336413fb1ab432e8d864fd6cb/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/d9888b7336413fb1ab432e8d864fd6cb/status.svg)](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/d9888b7336413fb1ab432e8d864fd6cb)

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

@simonbyrne & @williamfgc, 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 @luraess 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 @simonbyrne

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

[ ] 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 (@ltang85) 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.
[x] 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

[x] 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)?
[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?
[ ] 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 @williamfgc

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 (@ltang85) 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?

simonbyrne commented 6 months ago

Thanks @ltang85, I has missed the response.

In section 5.3, how long was the simulation? It does still look to me like PC2 & PC3 corresponds to the regular diurnal cycle (which I would assume is the biggest source of regular variation in the data)

luraess commented 5 months ago

@ltang85 Could you provide a reply to @simonbyrne and potentially clarify this in the paper as final step? Upon this being addressed, I would like to finalise the revision and get your work published. Thanks for handling swiftly!

ltang85 commented 5 months ago

@simonbyrne @luraess sorry for my late reply and I have just asked one of the co-authors about this question and waiting for the reply, I think we should be able to answer this question well by next week.

luraess commented 5 months ago

Next week would be ideal @ltang85

ltang85 commented 5 months ago

@simonbyrne @luraess The simulation is a whole year and it is in the beginning of sec 5.3. To clarify, we have also added one sentence into sec 5.3 - "It is plausible that the second and third components correspond to the regular diurnal cycle, which is likely one of the largest sources of regular variation in the one-year timespan considered here."

luraess commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

luraess commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

Paper is not ready for acceptance yet, the archive is missing

luraess commented 5 months ago

@ltang85 there some minor tweaks needed in order to be able to accept the paper:

It would be useful to update the README content in your main repo https://github.com/ltang85/In-Situ-data-Analysis-with-Julia-for-Climate-Simulations-at-Large-Scale; currently, it contains information about preparing the proceeding submission. Ideally, it would contain a brief summary of the repo's content and its purpose (paper and scripts to reproduce results, which software it relates to)
Further, we need a Zenodo DOI for the https://github.com/ltang85/In-Situ-data-Analysis-with-Julia-for-Climate-Simulations-at-Large-Scale repository, as well as a version number. This is needed for reproducibility purpose. You could link this repo with Zenodo, and tag a release which would then automatically generate a Zenodo archive with corresponding DOI (see https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/archiving-a-github-repository/referencing-and-citing-content)

Upon completing these 2 steps, we should be finally good to go

ltang85 commented 5 months ago

@luraess Done, please let me know if the DOI is not working properly. Thanks.

luraess commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.12104097 as archive

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.12104097

luraess commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot set v1.0 as version

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

Done! version is now v1.0

luraess commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1287/opre.38.5.911 is OK
- 10.1109/DRBSD754563.2021.00009 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI3996.1 is OK
- 10.1109/SmartGridComm.2016.7778841 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0465.1 is OK
- 10.1145/3144769.3144778 is OK
- 10.1145/169627.169855 is OK
- 10.1109/CGO.2004.1281665 is OK
- 10.1145/3430936 is OK
- 10.1109/LDAV.2011.6092322 is OK
- 10.2312/EGPGV/EGPGV11/101-109 is OK
- 10.1145/1383529.1383533 is OK
- 10.1177/1094342020935991 is OK
- 10.11578/E3SM/dc.20180418.36 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1467-8659.2011.01964.x is OK
- 10.1109/CLUSTER.2018.00036 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346458 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0465.1 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467411 is OK
- 10.1109/SC41404.2022.00066 is OK
- 10.1109/PMBS51919.2020.00008 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: MPI.jl: Julia bindings for the Message Passing Int...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: SENSEI:Scalable in situ analysis and visualization
- No DOI given, and none found for title: User’s Guide for MPICH, a Portable Implementation ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The MVAPICH project: Evolution and sustainability ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: AdaOja: Adaptive learning rates for streaming PCA
- No DOI given, and none found for title: SCORPIO, A high-level Parallel I/O Library

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.42246 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2020.100561 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001562 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001603 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028927 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001562 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
-  https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001629 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1038/294519a0 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1145/3426462.3426465 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001603 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.12930 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1145/857076.857077 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0835.1 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30218-6\_19 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.12930 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1029/2020RG000708 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1145/3490138.3490142 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014%3C1959:CODAET%3E2.0.CO;2 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-2-79-2016 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2999792.2999805 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1137/080731992 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

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

Check final proof :point_right::page_facing_up: Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-papers/pull/90, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

luraess commented 5 months ago

@ltang85 we are soon ready to go. Could you please check

the missing and invalid DOIs reported here: https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-review/issues/134#issuecomment-2176914379
and the final proof: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-papers/jcon.00134/jcon.00134/10.21105.jcon.00134.pdf

Once I get your final feedback, we could proceed with accepting your manuscript - thanks!

ltang85 commented 5 months ago

@luraess Done with those DOIs. I will have a final proofread once the final proof is generated. Thanks.

luraess commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.17863/CAM.42246 is OK
- 10.1016/j.softx.2020.100561 is OK
- 10.21105/jcon.00068 is OK
- 10.1029/2018MS001562 is OK
- 10.1029/2018MS001603 is OK
- 10.1029/2018JD028927 is OK
- 10.1029/2018MS001562 is OK
- 10.1029/2019MS001629 is OK
- 10.1287/opre.38.5.911 is OK
- 10.1109/DRBSD754563.2021.00009 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI3996.1 is OK
- 10.1038/294519a0 is OK
- 10.1109/SmartGridComm.2016.7778841 is OK
- 10.1145/3426462.3426465 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016 is OK
- 10.1029/2018MS001603 is OK
- 10.1111/cgf.12930 is OK
- 10.1145/857076.857077 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0835.1 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0465.1 is OK
- 10.1145/3144769.3144778 is OK
- 10.1016/0167-8191(96)00024-5 is OK
- 10.1145/169627.169855 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jocs.2020.101208 is OK
- 10.1109/CGO.2004.1281665 is OK
- 10.1145/3430936 is OK
- 10.1109/LDAV.2011.6092322 is OK
- 10.2312/EGPGV/EGPGV11/101-109 is OK
- 10.1145/1383529.1383533 is OK
- 10.1177/1094342020935991 is OK
- 10.1111/cgf.12930 is OK
- 10.11578/E3SM/dc.20180418.36 is OK
- 10.1029/2020RG000708 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1467-8659.2011.01964.x is OK
- 10.1109/CLUSTER.2018.00036 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346458 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0465.1 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467411 is OK
- 10.1145/3490138.3490142 is OK
- 10.5194/ascmo-2-79-2016 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1905.12115 is OK
- 10.1137/080731992 is OK
- 10.1109/HiPC.2013.6799128 is OK
- 10.1109/SC41404.2022.00066 is OK
- 10.1109/PMBS51919.2020.00008 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: SENSEI:Scalable in situ analysis and visualization
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The MVAPICH project: Evolution and sustainability ...

INVALID DOIs

- 10.5555/3018859.3018867 is INVALID
- 10.1007/978-3-540-30218-6\_19 URL is INVALID
- 10.1175/1520-0442(2001)0143C1959:CODAET3E2.0.CO;2 is INVALID
- https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2999792.2999805 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

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

Check final proof :point_right::page_facing_up: Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-papers/pull/91, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

ltang85 commented 5 months ago

@luraess could you help me regenerate it again? Thanks.

luraess commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.17863/CAM.42246 is OK
- 10.1016/j.softx.2020.100561 is OK
- 10.21105/jcon.00068 is OK
- 10.1029/2018MS001562 is OK
- 10.1029/2018MS001603 is OK
- 10.1029/2018JD028927 is OK
- 10.1029/2018MS001562 is OK
- 10.1029/2019MS001629 is OK
- 10.1287/opre.38.5.911 is OK
- 10.1109/DRBSD754563.2021.00009 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI3996.1 is OK
- 10.1038/294519a0 is OK
- 10.1109/SmartGridComm.2016.7778841 is OK
- 10.1145/3426462.3426465 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016 is OK
- 10.1029/2018MS001603 is OK
- 10.1111/cgf.12930 is OK
- 10.1145/857076.857077 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0835.1 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0465.1 is OK
- 10.1145/3144769.3144778 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-81627-8_13 is OK
- 10.1016/0167-8191(96)00024-5 is OK
- 10.1145/169627.169855 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jocs.2020.101208 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-540-30218-6_19 is OK
- 10.1109/CGO.2004.1281665 is OK
- 10.1145/3430936 is OK
- 10.1109/LDAV.2011.6092322 is OK
- 10.2312/EGPGV/EGPGV11/101-109 is OK
- 10.1145/1383529.1383533 is OK
- 10.1177/1094342020935991 is OK
- 10.1111/cgf.12930 is OK
- 10.11578/E3SM/dc.20180418.36 is OK
- 10.1029/2020RG000708 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1467-8659.2011.01964.x is OK
- 10.1109/CLUSTER.2018.00036 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346458 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0465.1 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467411 is OK
- 10.1145/3490138.3490142 is OK
- 10.5194/ascmo-2-79-2016 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1905.12115 is OK
- 10.1137/080731992 is OK
- 10.1109/HiPC.2013.6799128 is OK
- 10.1109/SC41404.2022.00066 is OK
- 10.1109/PMBS51919.2020.00008 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- 10.5555/2999792.2999805 is INVALID

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

:warning: Error preparing paper acceptance.

ltang85 commented 5 months ago

@luraess Done

luraess commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.17863/CAM.42246 is OK
- 10.1016/j.softx.2020.100561 is OK
- 10.21105/jcon.00068 is OK
- 10.1029/2018MS001562 is OK
- 10.1029/2018MS001603 is OK
- 10.1029/2018JD028927 is OK
- 10.1029/2018MS001562 is OK
- 10.1029/2019MS001629 is OK
- 10.1287/opre.38.5.911 is OK
- 10.1109/DRBSD754563.2021.00009 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI3996.1 is OK
- 10.1038/294519a0 is OK
- 10.1109/SmartGridComm.2016.7778841 is OK
- 10.1145/3426462.3426465 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016 is OK
- 10.1029/2018MS001603 is OK
- 10.1111/cgf.12930 is OK
- 10.1145/857076.857077 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0835.1 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0465.1 is OK
- 10.1145/3144769.3144778 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-81627-8_13 is OK
- 10.1016/0167-8191(96)00024-5 is OK
- 10.1145/169627.169855 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jocs.2020.101208 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-540-30218-6_19 is OK
- 10.1109/CGO.2004.1281665 is OK
- 10.1145/3430936 is OK
- 10.1109/LDAV.2011.6092322 is OK
- 10.2312/EGPGV/EGPGV11/101-109 is OK
- 10.1145/1383529.1383533 is OK
- 10.1177/1094342020935991 is OK
- 10.1111/cgf.12930 is OK
- 10.11578/E3SM/dc.20180418.36 is OK
- 10.1029/2020RG000708 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1467-8659.2011.01964.x is OK
- 10.1109/CLUSTER.2018.00036 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346458 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0465.1 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467411 is OK
- 10.1145/3490138.3490142 is OK
- 10.5194/ascmo-2-79-2016 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1307.6769 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1905.12115 is OK
- 10.1137/080731992 is OK
- 10.1109/HiPC.2013.6799128 is OK
- 10.1109/SC41404.2022.00066 is OK
- 10.1109/PMBS51919.2020.00008 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

:warning: Error preparing paper acceptance.

luraess commented 5 months ago

@ltang85 There is compilation error now https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-papers/actions/runs/9577082813/job/26404686944

Can you try checking with your local build and see why since the recent change (from here https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-review/issues/134#issuecomment-2177070547) the PDF is no longer compiling. Thanks!

ltang85 commented 5 months ago

@luraess just fixed it locally, can you try it? Thanks.

luraess commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.17863/CAM.42246 is OK
- 10.1016/j.softx.2020.100561 is OK
- 10.21105/jcon.00068 is OK
- 10.1029/2018MS001562 is OK
- 10.1029/2018MS001603 is OK
- 10.1029/2018JD028927 is OK
- 10.1029/2018MS001562 is OK
- 10.1029/2019MS001629 is OK
- 10.1287/opre.38.5.911 is OK
- 10.1109/DRBSD754563.2021.00009 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI3996.1 is OK
- 10.1038/294519a0 is OK
- 10.1109/SmartGridComm.2016.7778841 is OK
- 10.1145/3426462.3426465 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016 is OK
- 10.1029/2018MS001603 is OK
- 10.1111/cgf.12930 is OK
- 10.1145/857076.857077 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0835.1 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0465.1 is OK
- 10.1145/3144769.3144778 is OK
- 10.1016/0167-8191(96)00024-5 is OK
- 10.1145/169627.169855 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jocs.2020.101208 is OK
- 10.1109/CGO.2004.1281665 is OK
- 10.1145/3430936 is OK
- 10.1109/LDAV.2011.6092322 is OK
- 10.2312/EGPGV/EGPGV11/101-109 is OK
- 10.1145/1383529.1383533 is OK
- 10.1177/1094342020935991 is OK
- 10.1111/cgf.12930 is OK
- 10.11578/E3SM/dc.20180418.36 is OK
- 10.1029/2020RG000708 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1467-8659.2011.01964.x is OK
- 10.1109/CLUSTER.2018.00036 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346458 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0465.1 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467411 is OK
- 10.1145/3490138.3490142 is OK
- 10.5194/ascmo-2-79-2016 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1307.6769 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1905.12115 is OK
- 10.1137/080731992 is OK
- 10.1109/HiPC.2013.6799128 is OK
- 10.1109/SC41404.2022.00066 is OK
- 10.1109/PMBS51919.2020.00008 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-030-81627-8\_13 URL is INVALID
- 10.1007/978-3-540-30218-6\_19 URL is INVALID

ltang85 commented 5 months ago

@luraess let me fix this

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

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

Check final proof :point_right::page_facing_up: Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-papers/pull/92, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

ltang85 commented 5 months ago

@luraess Done.

luraess commented 5 months ago

@JuliaCon/jcon-eics - can someone x-check that all is good for acceptance 🙏

ltang85 commented 5 months ago

@luraess Done.

@luraess This includes a few changes for fixing the DOIs and refs after the proof read generation, do we need a new proof read generation?

luraess commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.17863/CAM.42246 is OK
- 10.1016/j.softx.2020.100561 is OK
- 10.21105/jcon.00068 is OK
- 10.1029/2018MS001562 is OK
- 10.1029/2018MS001603 is OK
- 10.1029/2018JD028927 is OK
- 10.1029/2018MS001562 is OK
- 10.1029/2019MS001629 is OK
- 10.1287/opre.38.5.911 is OK
- 10.1109/DRBSD754563.2021.00009 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI3996.1 is OK
- 10.1038/294519a0 is OK
- 10.1109/SmartGridComm.2016.7778841 is OK
- 10.1145/3426462.3426465 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016 is OK
- 10.1029/2018MS001603 is OK
- 10.1111/cgf.12930 is OK
- 10.1145/857076.857077 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0835.1 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0465.1 is OK
- 10.1145/3144769.3144778 is OK
- 10.1016/0167-8191(96)00024-5 is OK
- 10.1145/169627.169855 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jocs.2020.101208 is OK
- 10.1109/CGO.2004.1281665 is OK
- 10.1145/3430936 is OK
- 10.1109/LDAV.2011.6092322 is OK
- 10.2312/EGPGV/EGPGV11/101-109 is OK
- 10.1145/1383529.1383533 is OK
- 10.1177/1094342020935991 is OK
- 10.1111/cgf.12930 is OK
- 10.11578/E3SM/dc.20180418.36 is OK
- 10.1029/2020RG000708 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1467-8659.2011.01964.x is OK
- 10.1109/CLUSTER.2018.00036 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346458 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0465.1 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467411 is OK
- 10.1145/3490138.3490142 is OK
- 10.5194/ascmo-2-79-2016 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1307.6769 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1905.12115 is OK
- 10.1137/080731992 is OK
- 10.1109/HiPC.2013.6799128 is OK
- 10.1109/SC41404.2022.00066 is OK
- 10.1109/PMBS51919.2020.00008 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-030-81627-8\textunderscore13 URL is INVALID
- 10.1007/978-3-540-30218-6\textunderscore19 URL is INVALID

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

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

Check final proof :point_right::page_facing_up: Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-papers/pull/93, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

luraess commented 5 months ago

I guess you have DOIs as 10.1007/978-3-030-81627-8_13 but the _ gets interpreted as \textunderscore. Is there a way we could work around this?

JuliaCon / proceedings-review