Open whedon opened 1 year ago
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @RomiNahir, @s-m-e 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/openjournals/jose-reviews) 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
Wordcount for paper.md
is 1640
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Software report (experimental):
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.44 s (64.1 files/s, 273242.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jupyter Notebook 24 0 117214 1717
Markdown 2 84 0 205
YAML 1 0 0 45
TeX 1 0 0 37
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 28 84 117214 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistical information for the repository 'c644813d48822785d482fb19' was
gathered on 2023/03/07.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:
Author Commits Insertions Deletions % of changes
Julia Wagemann 7 28169 28265 99.59
jwagemann 2 163 67 0.41
Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:
Author Rows Stability Age % in comments
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- None
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
Overall, this article is an excellent guide to learn and implement dust monitoring and detection with clear objectives and comprehensible modules. The learning platform has an easy access with high quality exercises and examples. I think the implementation of this algorithms in other world regions won't be complicated to adapt.
:wave: @s-m-e, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
:wave: @RomiNahir, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
@jwagemann @RomiNahir finished her review and mention you need to add this point:
Hi @s-m-e, since we have not hard from you in several weeks, we are now looking for a new reviewer. Thank you for your original willingness to contribute a review.
@whedon remove @s-m-e as reviewer
OK, @s-m-e is no longer a reviewer
Hi @yxqd, you volunteer to review for JOSE. Will you be willing to review this submission about: Module on dust aerosol detection, monitoring and forecasting ?
Hi @sbanchero, thanks for agreeing to review this work :-)
@whedon add @sbanchero as reviewer
OK, @sbanchero is now a reviewer
@sbanchero inform us that he will try to tackle this review during July.
@whedon commands
My name is now @editorialbot
@editorialbot commands
Hello @yabellini, here are the things you can ask me to do:
# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands
# Add to this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot add @username as reviewer
# Remove from this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot remove @username from reviewers
# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors
# Assign a user as the editor of this submission
@editorialbot assign @username as editor
# Remove the editor assigned to this submission
@editorialbot remove editor
# Remind an author, a reviewer or the editor to return to a review after a
# certain period of time (supported units days and weeks)
@editorialbot remind @reviewer in 2 weeks
# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references
# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository
# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist
# Set a value for version
@editorialbot set v1.0.0 as version
# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set jose-paper as branch
# Set a value for repository
@editorialbot set https://github.com/organization/repo as repository
# Set a value for the archive DOI
@editorialbot set set 10.5281/zenodo.6861996 as archive
# Mention the EiCs for the correct track
@editorialbot ping track-eic
# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf
# Recommends the submission for acceptance
@editorialbot recommend-accept
# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint
# Flag submission with questionable scope
@editorialbot query scope
# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers
# Creates a post-review checklist with editor and authors tasks
@editorialbot create post-review checklist
# Open the review issue
@editorialbot start review
@editorialbot remove @sbanchero from reviewers
@sbanchero removed from the reviewers list!
@editorialbot add @cosimameyer as reviewer
@cosimameyer added to the reviewers list!
Thanks so much @cosimameyer for agree reviewing this work. Please use @editorialbot generate my checklist
to adds a checklist for your review. Let me know if you have any questions.
paper.md
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?Thanks so much for the opportunity to review this exciting material! Besides the topical relevance and the fact that the authors make learning content publicly available, I commend the choice of hosting the material on a separate website (JupyterBook) which lowers the entry barriers.
Going through the submission, I collected some notes that may help to make the submission even more appealing. I recommend publishing the submissions once the requirements for the journal are met.
General Checks
Functionality
Documentation
Thanks again for submitting the content, I'm very much looking forward to seeing it published!
Side note @yabellini The review checklist has “Tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?” in it. I don’t see any tests (but also don't see the need for additional tests). Can we check it off anyway or are there specific tests required for this kind of submission?
@cosimameyer thank you so much for you review.
@jwagemann the reviewers finished their work and let some comments for you. Please let us know when you work on these observations.
Hi @cosimameyer and @RomiNahir for your great reviews. I'll work on the refinements as suggested and hope to respond to this thread by end of January.
@yabellini: the review checklist for @cosimameyer is slightly different to the one that is defined above. Have the review checklists changed or is there a confusion with the checklist from JOSS?
@yabellini: the review checklist for @cosimameyer is slightly different to the one that is defined above. Have the review checklists changed or is there a confusion with the checklist from JOSS?
I know the bot changes from when the review starts to when Cosima becomes a reviewer, so perhaps the checklist also changes, but I need to ask to be sure.
@openjournals/dev We have a little mystery here: the review checklist added for the second reviewer (post change to editorialbot
) looks like a software checklist, not a learning module checklist. JOSE has two article types, with slightly different checklists. Is editorialbot
able to generate the right checklist, depending on article type?
@labarba in order to decide which checklist to use editorialbot
reads the headers in the body of the issue looking for the paper kind
info (see for example here). It looks like this review is missing it so it added the default checklist (software). I'm going to add the paper kind
header with the correct value.
Added paper kind
header with learning module
as value.
Re-running the checklist command should add the right one. The old one can be deleted.
Thanks @xuanxu ! I would not delete the previews one because already have the review.
@editorialbot generate my checklist
@yabellini I can't do that because you are not a reviewer
@editorialbot add @yabellini as reviewer
@yabellini added to the reviewers list!
paper.md
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?I will trespass @cosimameyer's review to the format of JOSE in the checklist I created for myself.
@cosimameyer Because the bot created the checklist for JOSS papers and not JOSE, we still need to review some aspects of the paper related to the pedagogical points. Can you review and comment on those? Based on your checklist and comments, I created the right checklist and already completed the points I can. I'm sorry for this inconvenience.
No worries 🤗 I seem not to be able to tick any boxes in your review, @yabellini. I'll give it a try to generate new one for myself.
paper.md
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?@yabellini @jwagemann please find the correct reviewer checklist above ☺️ I adjusted my comments slightly to fit the new checklist (if they are already tackled, please dismiss them):
General Checks
Documentation
JOSE paper
Again, I'm very much looking forward to seeing your work published 🙌
Thank you so much @cosimameyer ! @jwagemann now we have the two revisions ready.
@whedon generate pdf
My name is now @editorialbot
@editorialbot generate pdf
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@jwagemann<!--end-author-handle-- (Julia Wagemann) Repository: https://gitlab.eumetsat.int/eumetlab/atmosphere/dust-monitoring Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v0.1 Editor: !--editor-->@yabellini<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @RomiNahir, @cosimameyer, @yabellini Archive: Pending Paper kind: learning module
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
@RomiNahir & @s-m-e, 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 @yabellini 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 @RomiNahir
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Documentation
Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)
JOSE paper
paper.md
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?Review checklist for @sbanchero
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Documentation
Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)
JOSE paper
paper.md
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?