Closed editorialbot closed 4 months ago
Hello humans, 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
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.12 s (277.4 files/s, 275475.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVG 3 3 3 17506
CSS 3 2487 9 5383
Jupyter Notebook 8 0 4289 1282
Markdown 5 137 0 512
HTML 1 53 0 246
TeX 2 23 0 224
Python 3 65 98 94
Lua 1 9 2 73
YAML 4 13 9 70
JavaScript 1 15 20 40
Sass 1 13 11 37
TOML 1 5 4 37
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 33 2823 4445 25504
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 2374
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.91.045002 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3960218 is OK
- 10.1098/rsta.2020.0093 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-69128-8_12 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5960048 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@manubastidas, @mnarayan, this is the space where the review process takes form. There is a checklist for each one, tick the boxes when you see that the criterion is satisfied. You can generate the checklist with
@editorialbot generate my checklist
I will be here to answer the questions that you might have.
Let us use as a tentative timeframe the first week of April, is that OK for you?
paper.md
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?Hi All, and thanks for volunteering to edit/review. Please do let me know if you have any questions or if I can help at all.
We have just delivered another workshop using this material this week.
Hello @manubastidas and @mnarayan, do you have any advances regarding this review? If we can help you with something please let us know.
I think that @manubastidas is not able to continue the review with us for personal reasons. Thank you for your disposition and I hope to count with you in future opportunities.
@dortiz5 has accepted to help us with the review.
@editorialbot remove @manubastidas from reviewers
@manubastidas removed from the reviewers list!
@editorialbot add @dortiz5 to reviewers
@dortiz5 added to the reviewers list!
@dortiz5, this is the space where the review process takes form. There is a checklist for each one, tick the boxes when you see that the criterion is satisfied. You can generate the checklist with
@editorialbot generate my checklist
I will be here to answer the questions that you might have.
Let us use as a tentative timeframe the second week of May, is that OK for you?
paper.md
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?Thanks for looking at this @dortiz5 !
I have just opened a Pull Request to add contribution guidelines here.
Once that has been reviewed I'll merge it to main, and then rebase the paper branch off of main and let you know.
@jatkinson1000, thanks to you for the repository.
It is nicely written, ordered, and storytelling, with clear instructions for preparation and prerequisites to run the exercises. Also, the local installation was easy. I followed the four simple steps you described, and it works correctly.
From the pedagogical standpoint, learning objectives are explicitly written and aligned with the content in the slides and the exercises. I liked that you gave different options to run the exercises and gave their solutions. Also, the information is concise and easy to follow. Finally, I found that the JOSE paper follows the checklist.
Hi @dortiz5 There should now be contribution guidelines on the main branch and the paper branch.
I'll look at sorting a version and let you know once that's done.
@mnarayan @nicoguaro please do let me know if there is anything I can do to help you. Thanks all!
@dortiz5, thanks for the review. Would you recommend the work for publication?
@mnarayan, can you still provide a review for this submission? Please let us know if we can do something to help you move forward.
yes! I recommend the work for publication.
@dortiz5 Thank you so much for your time and kind words.
@nicoguaro and @mnarayan please let us know if there is anything at all I can do to get this over the finish line and accepted, especially after @dortiz5's positive review. We are delivering this course again in July and it would be great to be able to feature/link to JOSE at the workshop.
@editorialbot add @pdpino to reviewers
@pdpino added to the reviewers list!
@pdpino, this is the space where the review process takes form. There is a checklist for each one, tick the boxes when you see that the criterion is satisfied. You can generate the checklist with
@editorialbot generate my checklist
I will be here to answer the questions that you might have.
Let us use as a tentative timeframe the end of May, is that OK for you?
@pdpino Thank you so much for agreeing to review our work. Please do let us know if you have any questions, or if there is anything we can do to help you here. :)
paper.md
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?Hello everyone, sorry for the late reply, I finally found some time to check this out.
Overall it looks really good! I think the slides and exercises are very pedagogic. I left some minor suggestions and changes (https://github.com/Cambridge-ICCS/ml-training-material/issues/53, https://github.com/Cambridge-ICCS/ml-training-material/pull/54, https://github.com/Cambridge-ICCS/ml-training-material/pull/55, https://github.com/Cambridge-ICCS/ml-training-material/issues/56), but these are non-blocking and I recommend the work for publication.
@nicoguaro what does the point about Version mean in this case? There are no releases in this repository, so I'd say it doesn't apply in this case. @jatkinson1000 though I might suggest you version your releases, in case you want to change this course in the future.
Thanks @pdpino for your kind words.
I have accepted your contributions, and opened a couple of PRs for the issues you raised.
Once these are merged I will apply a version number and release tag ready for publication!
@pdpino, thanks for your review.
@jatkinson1000, please let me know when you have the release version and have addressed the main issues so we can move forward.
@nicoguaro
I have merged all of the pull requests and created a tagged release v1.0.0 on Github. This can be viewed here: https://github.com/Cambridge-ICCS/practical-ml-with-pytorch
Thank you (and the reviewers) for taking us through the process.
@nicoguaro I have also created a Zenodo release for v1.0.0 here: https://zenodo.org/records/11401113
All good on my side, great work!
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.91.045002 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3960218 is OK
- 10.1098/rsta.2020.0093 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-69128-8_12 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5960048 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance dee...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Teaching and learning with Jupyter
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The MNIST database of handwritten digits
- No DOI given, and none found for title: TorchTools
INVALID DOIs
- None
@editorialbot check repository
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.08 s (449.4 files/s, 434191.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVG 3 3 3 17506
CSS 3 2487 9 5383
Jupyter Notebook 8 0 4297 1283
Markdown 5 144 0 540
HTML 1 57 0 265
TeX 2 23 0 224
Python 4 68 99 98
Lua 1 9 2 73
YAML 4 13 9 70
JavaScript 1 15 20 40
Sass 1 13 11 37
TOML 1 5 4 37
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 34 2837 4454 25556
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
45 jdenholm
37 jatkinson1000
3 Dominic Orchard
3 Jack Atkinson
2 Jim Denholm
2 Pablo
1 Ankit Bhandekar
Paper file info:
📄 Wordcount for paper.md
is 2372
✅ The paper includes a Statement of need
section
License info:
✅ License found: MIT License
(Valid open source OSI approved license)
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@editorialbot set https://zenodo.org/records/11401113 as archive
That doesn't look like a valid DOI value
@editorialbot set https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11401113 as archive
Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.11401113
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.91.045002 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3960218 is OK
- 10.1098/rsta.2020.0093 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-69128-8_12 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5960048 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance dee...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Teaching and learning with Jupyter
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The MNIST database of handwritten digits
- No DOI given, and none found for title: TorchTools
INVALID DOIs
- None
:wave: @openjournals/jose-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.
Check final proof :point_right::page_facing_up: Download article
If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in https://github.com/openjournals/jose-papers/pull/143, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept
@labarba, this paper is ready to move forward.
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@jatkinson1000<!--end-author-handle-- (Jack Atkinson) Repository: https://github.com/Cambridge-ICCS/ml-training-material Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): JOSE Version: v1.0 Editor: !--editor-->@nicoguaro<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @dortiz5, @pdpino Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.11401113 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
@mnarayan & @manubastidas, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review. First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://openjournals.readthedocs.io/en/jose/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @nicoguaro 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 ✨
Checklists
📝 Checklist for @mnarayan
📝 Checklist for @dortiz5
📝 Checklist for @pdpino