[REVIEW]: EditorialBot testing

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@luraess@lucaferranti<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @arfon, @lucaferranti Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/af2a1249d0dc82144500687dba99778f"><img src="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/af2a1249d0dc82144500687dba99778f/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/af2a1249d0dc82144500687dba99778f/status.svg)](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/af2a1249d0dc82144500687dba99778f)

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

@arfon & @lucaferranti, 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 @lucaferranti 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 @lucaferranti

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

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 source files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 2 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

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.01 s (937.1 files/s, 220217.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TeX                              8            271            194           2693
Ruby                             1              8              4             45
Markdown                         1             12              0             29
YAML                             1              0              0             13
TOML                             1              2              0              8
Julia                            2              3              1              7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            14            296            199           2795
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    13  Mathieu Besançon
     2  Christian Schilling
     2  Jeffrey Sarnoff
     2  Valentin Churavy
     1  Benoît Legat
     1  Carsten Bauer
     1  Hendrik Ranocha
     1  Jorge Pérez Zerpa
     1  Ludovic Räss
     1  Patrick Altmeyer
     1  Simon Byrne

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.tex is 2185

🔴 Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

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

lucaferranti commented 2 months ago

Review checklist for @lucaferranti

Conflict of interest

[ ] I confirm that I have read the JuliaCon conflict of interest policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JCon for the purpose of this review.

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 https://github.com/luraess/JuliaConSubmission.jl?
[ ] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[ ] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@luraess) 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 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

Paper format

[ ] Authors: Does the paper.tex file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[ ] 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?
[ ] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

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?

lucaferranti commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot reject

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

There was a problem rejecting the paper.

lucaferranti commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot reject

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

There was a problem rejecting the paper.

lucaferranti commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot reject

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

There was a problem rejecting the paper.

JuliaCon / proceedings-review