[REVIEW]: Interactive Bin Packing: A Java Application for Learning Constructive Heuristics for Combinatorial Optimization

whedon commented 3 years ago

Submitting author: @cicirello (Vincent A Cicirello) Repository: https://github.com/cicirello/InteractiveBinPacking Version: v3.1.1 Editor: @labarba Reviewers: @turketwh Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.6402123

:warning: JOSE reduced service mode :warning:

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSE is currently operating in a "reduced service mode".

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/c994f4aab2b351e9c2fee12113bd2130"><img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/c994f4aab2b351e9c2fee12113bd2130/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/c994f4aab2b351e9c2fee12113bd2130/status.svg)](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/c994f4aab2b351e9c2fee12113bd2130)

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

@adeepak7 & @turketwh, 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/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @labarba 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 @adeepak7

Conflict of interest

[ ] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE 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 JOSE 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?
[ ] Version: v3.1.1
[ ] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@cicirello) made substantial 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? (and documentation is sufficient?)
[ ] 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 the need for this software 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?
[ ] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[ ] 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

Software paper

[ ] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[ ] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
[ ] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @turketwh

Conflict of interest

[x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE 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 JOSE 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] Version: v3.1.1
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@cicirello) made substantial 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? (and documentation is sufficient?)
[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 the need for this software 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?
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] 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

Software paper

[x] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
[x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

labarba commented 2 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon commented 2 years ago

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

whedon commented 2 years ago

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

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-papers/pull/85
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00140
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

labarba commented 2 years ago

Congratulations, @cicirello, your JOSE article is published! 🚀

Huge thanks to the reviewer: @turketwh — we really appreciate your contribution to this adventure in publishing 🙏

whedon commented 2 years 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://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00140/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00140)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00140">
  <img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00140/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00140/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00140

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Education 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: http://jose.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-jose

openjournals / jose-reviews