[REVIEW]: Course Materials for an Introduction to Data-Driven Chemistry

whedon commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: @ppxasjsm (Antonia S J S Mey) Repository: https://github.com/Edinburgh-Chemistry-Teaching/Data-driven-chemistry Version: 1.1.0 Editor: @arm61 Reviewer: @lucydot, @ghutchis Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7782433

: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/b4bb200d717653e896a84e2bbef8aa83"><img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/b4bb200d717653e896a84e2bbef8aa83/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/b4bb200d717653e896a84e2bbef8aa83/status.svg)](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/b4bb200d717653e896a84e2bbef8aa83)

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

@lucydot & @ghutchis, 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 @arm61 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 @lucydot

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 for this learning module available at the repository url?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
[x] Version: 1.1.0
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@ppxasjsm) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
[x] Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

[x] Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
[x] Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
[x] Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
[x] Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
[x] Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

[x] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
[x] Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
[x] Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
[x] Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
[x] Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
[x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @ghutchis

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 for this learning module available at the repository url?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
[x] Version: 1.1.0
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@ppxasjsm) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
[x] Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

[x] Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
[x] Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
[x] Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
[x] Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
[x] Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

[x] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
[x] Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
[x] Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
[x] Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
[x] Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
[x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

ppxasjsm commented 1 year ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 1 year ago

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

ppxasjsm commented 1 year ago

It now says Jupyter Project et al. is this acceptable?

labarba commented 1 year ago

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon commented 1 year ago

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

whedon commented 1 year 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/122
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00192
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 1 year ago

Congratulations, @ppxasjsm, your JOSE paper is now published! 🚀

Huge thanks to our Editor: @arm61 and Reviewers: @lucydot, @ghutchis — your contributions make all of this possible 🙏

whedon commented 1 year 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.00192/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00192)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00192">
  <img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00192/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00192/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00192

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

ppxasjsm commented 1 year ago

Hi @labarba, I guess I was too eager to get this done and noticed only now that my own ORCID is wrong. Is there any way to still fix this?

labarba commented 1 year ago

oh dear...

labarba commented 1 year ago

@openjournals/dev — Help requested! We have published a paper, and post-publication the author has indicated that there's an error in the ORCID. Are you able to make a fix to an already deposited article?

@ppxasjsm Please note here what the correct ORCID should be.

ppxasjsm commented 1 year ago

The ORCID should be: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7512-5252, instead of 0000-0001-5911-0472

arm61 commented 1 year ago

Adding double checking ORCIDs to my editor checklist. My apologies for missing this!

ppxasjsm commented 1 year ago

I should have also done it! I checked all but my own…

arfon commented 1 year ago

That should be updated now.

labarba commented 1 year ago

Thank you, Arfon!!

ppxasjsm commented 1 year ago

Thanks everyone! And sorry for the hassle.

openjournals / jose-reviews