[REVIEW]: Manim Slides: A Python package for presenting Manim content anywhere

whedon commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@jeertmans@magsol<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @behollister, @bryanwweber Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8215167

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/6cea80a2e0854602e095da04908cfdb9"><img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/6cea80a2e0854602e095da04908cfdb9/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/6cea80a2e0854602e095da04908cfdb9/status.svg)](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/6cea80a2e0854602e095da04908cfdb9)

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

@behollister & @bryanwweber, 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 @magsol 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 @behollister

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: v4.13.2
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@jeertmans) 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)?

Review checklist for @bryanwweber

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: v4.13.2
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@jeertmans) 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] #207
[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 1 year ago

@editorialbot set v4.15.0 as version

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Done! version is now v4.15.0

labarba commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.8215167 as archive

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.8215167

jeertmans commented 1 year ago

Ah. Do you have the GitHub Zenodo integration set up to update the archive automatically with each release? We do like to ask authors to edit the metadata of the archive so that the title and author list match the paper. (The auto-archives pull as authors all committers to the repo and use the repo name as title.) Could you do that change for the archive we will attach to the JOSE paper?

Done! :-)

labarba commented 1 year ago

Oops. Somewhere we missed something. The archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.8215167 and it doesn't show the paper title.

jeertmans commented 1 year ago

Like so @labarba ?

labarba commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:warning: Couldn't acccept/publish paper. An error happened. Could not deposit with Open Journals.

labarba commented 1 year ago

@openjournals/dev 👋 This is our first time accepting a paper here at JOSE with the new editorial workflow and bot, and I'm afraid something has gone awry. Help!

jeertmans commented 1 year ago

@labarba That's weird, even more because I received a ORCID notification asking me the permission to link to that paper... which links to 404 not found https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00206

Note: I don't think the @openjournals/dev tag works

arfon commented 1 year ago

@xuanxu any chance you could take a quick look?

xuanxu commented 1 year ago

I think I've fixed the error, retrying acceptance...

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

``` cff-version: "1.2.0" authors: - family-names: Eertmans given-names: Jérome orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5579-5360" doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8215167 message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the Journal of Open Source Software. preferred-citation: authors: - family-names: Eertmans given-names: Jérome orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5579-5360" date-published: 2023-08-08 doi: 10.21105/jose.00206 issn: 2577-3569 issue: 66 journal: Journal of Open Source Education publisher: name: Open Journals start: 206 title: "Manim Slides: A Python package for presenting Manim content anywhere" type: article url: "https://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00206" volume: 6 title: "Manim Slides: A Python package for presenting Manim content anywhere" ```

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

editorialbot 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/129
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00206
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

🌈 Paper updated!

New PDF and metadata files :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-papers/pull/130

labarba commented 1 year ago

Congratulations, @jeertmans, your JOSE paper is published! 🎉

Huge thanks to. our Editor: @magsol and the Reviewers: @behollister, @bryanwweber — this is all possible thanks to your generous contributions 🙏

editorialbot 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.00206/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00206)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00206">
  <img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00206/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00206/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00206

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The 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

jeertmans commented 1 year ago

Many thanks to all :D

magsol commented 1 year ago

Thank you as always to our fearless leader and EiC @labarba, both for shepherding the paper to its publication as she does so well, and for helping iron out some remaining wrinkles with the new editorial bot.

openjournals / jose-reviews