[REVIEW]: Aero Python: classical aerodynamics of potential flow using Python

whedon commented 5 years ago

Submitting author: @labarba (Lorena A. Barba) Repository: https://github.com/barbagroup/AeroPython Version: v1.0 Editor: @kyleniemeyer Reviewer: @weymouth, @Juanlu001 Archive: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1004727.v4

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/b679b34c976beec0bc64807bf087a468"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/b679b34c976beec0bc64807bf087a468/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/b679b34c976beec0bc64807bf087a468/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/b679b34c976beec0bc64807bf087a468)

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) 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

@weymouth & @Juanlu001, 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://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @kyleniemeyer know.

Review checklist for @weymouth

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: v1.0
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@labarba) 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?
[ ] 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 @Juanlu001

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: v1.0
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@labarba) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

[ ] 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)?

kyleniemeyer commented 5 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon commented 5 years ago

I'm sorry @kyleniemeyer, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editor-in-chiefs are allowed to do.

labarba commented 5 years ago

Yikes!

kyleniemeyer commented 5 years ago

@labarba hmm, I think I am supposed to have that power...

labarba commented 5 years ago

On JOSS, yes. But here, we never set up an EiC team.

kyleniemeyer commented 5 years ago

@labarba Ah. Well, we can figure that out offline. In the meantime, JOSE EiC, I'd like to recommend this submission be accepted 😄

labarba commented 5 years ago

I was just fiddling to create a new team (which I did), but can't find how to give it Admin powers. Gah.

labarba commented 5 years ago

I'll just go ahead and publish this.

labarba commented 5 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon commented 5 years ago

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

whedon commented 5 years 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/34
Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00045
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

kyleniemeyer commented 5 years ago

Congrats to @labarba and @mesnardo on your submissions's publication in JOSE! Thanks to @weymouth and @Juanlu001 for reviewing!

whedon commented 5 years 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.00045/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00045)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00045">
  <img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00045/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00045/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00045

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.salsalabs.org/donate-to-jose

labarba commented 5 years ago

https://twitter.com/JOSE_TheOJ/status/1129425838406082560

mesnardo commented 5 years ago

Yay! Many thanks to @kyleniemeyer, @Juanlu001, and @weymouth for all the suggestions and modifications provided!

whedon commented 5 years ago


OK DOIs

- 10.1080/08993408.2016.1144429 is OK
- 10.1037/0096-3445.127.4.355 is OK
- 10.1037/edu0000018 is OK
- 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.005 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-84010-4_1 is OK
- 10.21105/jose.00021 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon commented 5 years ago


OK DOIs

- 10.1080/08993408.2016.1144429 is OK
- 10.1037/0096-3445.127.4.355 is OK
- 10.1037/edu0000018 is OK
- 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.005 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-84010-4_1 is OK
- 10.21105/jose.00021 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon commented 5 years ago


OK DOIs

- 10.1080/08993408.2016.1144429 is OK
- 10.1037/0096-3445.127.4.355 is OK
- 10.1037/edu0000018 is OK
- 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.005 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-84010-4_1 is OK
- 10.21105/jose.00021 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

openjournals / jose-reviews