[PRE REVIEW]: Learning Machine Learning with Lorenz-96

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@dhruvbalwada<!--end-author-handle-- (Dhruv Balwada) Repository: https://github.com/m2lines/L96_demo Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.0 Editor: !--editor-->@magsol<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @micky774, @AnonymousFool Managing EiC: Lorena Barba

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/c644a0264f445698f212a051d8ace6e8"><img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/c644a0264f445698f212a051d8ace6e8/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/c644a0264f445698f212a051d8ace6e8/status.svg)](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/c644a0264f445698f212a051d8ace6e8)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @dhruvbalwada. Currently, there isn't a JOSE editor assigned to your paper.

@dhruvbalwada if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, 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's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.10 s (481.4 files/s, 272791.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jupyter Notebook                28              0          16704           7734
Python                           6            405            581           1335
TeX                              2             37              1            388
Markdown                         6             71              0            290
YAML                             5             10             27            183
SVG                              2              0              0              2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            49            523          17313           9932
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1350

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1017/cbo9780511617652.004 may be a valid DOI for title: Predictability: a problem partly solved

INVALID DOIs

- None

[labarba]

@dhruvbalwada 👋 Let me start with an apology: I am the editor-in-chief and I have neglected JOSE for several months due to plain overwhelm. I have cut down on other service and am back here with intention of reviving our little alt-journal. Thank you for your submission! Given the time that has passed, do you have updates to the paper?

[editorialbot]

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

[dhruvbalwada]

@labarba - no worries about the delay, I understand how these things go. Thank you for dedicating whatever time you can find to this great effort. In terms of the paper, we have not made any updates to the paper since submission. So the version that is generated by the bot is the best version. Please let me know what I can do to proceed.

[dhruvbalwada]

From the list of reviewers, people like Ali Ramadhan, Daniel Buscombe, Jemma Stachelek or Julia Wagemann might be interested.

[labarba]

@editorialbot invite @magsol as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[magsol]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @magsol is now the editor

[magsol]

@dhruvbalwada Thanks so much for the list of potential reviewers; I've started reaching out to them. Will hopefully hear back from some of them by the week's end.

[magsol]

Unfortunately after three attempts each, three of the four suggested reviewers have declined and the last has still not responded. So I'm going to start looking for other reviewers; @dhruvbalwada if you have any additional suggestions I'm open to them.

[magsol]

@editorialbot add @micky774 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@micky774 added to the reviewers list!

[magsol]

Just need one more reviewer! Still reaching out, will update.

[magsol]

@editorialbot add @AnonymousFool as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@AnonymousFool added to the reviewers list!

[magsol]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/issues/241.