search

openjournals / jose-reviews

Reviews for the Journal of Open Source Education (JOSE)
http://jose.theoj.org
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
33 stars 4 forks source link

[PRE REVIEW]: M4: Metals, Magnets, and Miscellaneous Materials #58

Closed whedon closed 5 years ago

whedon commented 5 years ago

Submitting author: @albi3ro (Christina Colleen Lee) Repository: https://github.com/albi3ro/M4 Version: v_jose-submit Editor: @katyhuff Reviewers: @IanHawke, @william-pfalzgraff

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @albi3ro. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@albi3ro if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

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

@whedon commands
whedon commented 5 years ago

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

What happens now?

This submission is currently in a pre-review state which means we are waiting for an editor to be assigned and for them to find some reviewers for your submission. This may take anything between a few hours to a couple of weeks. Thanks for your patience :smile_cat:

You can help the editor by looking at this list of potential reviewers to identify individuals who might be able to review your submission (please start at the bottom of the list). Also, feel free to suggest individuals who are not on this list by mentioning their GitHub handles here.

whedon commented 5 years ago 
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
whedon commented 5 years ago

PDF failed to compile for issue #58 with the following error:

Can't find any papers to compile :-(

labarba commented 5 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 5 years ago 
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
whedon commented 5 years ago

PDF failed to compile for issue #58 with the following error:

/app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-18b9a37e7f54/lib/whedon.rb:115:in check_fields': Paper YAML header is missing expected fields: affiliations, bibliography (RuntimeError) from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-18b9a37e7f54/lib/whedon.rb:80:ininitialize' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-18b9a37e7f54/lib/whedon/processor.rb:36:in new' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-18b9a37e7f54/lib/whedon/processor.rb:36:inset_paper' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-18b9a37e7f54/bin/whedon:55:in prepare' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/command.rb:27:inrun' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/invocation.rb:126:in invoke_command' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor.rb:387:indispatch' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/base.rb:466:in start' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-18b9a37e7f54/bin/whedon:116:in<top (required)>' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bin/whedon:23:in load' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bin/whedon:23:in

'

labarba commented 5 years ago

👋 @albi3ro —You will need to add the missing fields to the paper metadata. See error: Paper YAML header is missing expected fields: affiliations, bibliography

labarba commented 5 years ago

@katyhuff — The author suggested you as handling editor for this JOSE submission, but I know you're already editing another. Let me know if you're willing to do one more... otherwise, perhaps @moorepants will be willing? (although not quite aligned with area of interest/expertise). Help!

moorepants commented 5 years ago

I'll be on vacation for the next two weeks, so I couldn't do it until July 11th.

katyhuff commented 5 years ago

I'm swamped this week, but I can take a look at this next week.

katyhuff commented 5 years ago

@whedon assign @katyhuff as editor

whedon commented 5 years ago

OK, the editor is @katyhuff

katyhuff commented 5 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 5 years ago 
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
whedon commented 5 years ago

PDF failed to compile for issue #58 with the following error:

/app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-18b9a37e7f54/lib/whedon.rb:115:in check_fields': Paper YAML header is missing expected fields: affiliations, bibliography (RuntimeError) from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-18b9a37e7f54/lib/whedon.rb:80:ininitialize' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-18b9a37e7f54/lib/whedon/processor.rb:36:in new' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-18b9a37e7f54/lib/whedon/processor.rb:36:inset_paper' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-18b9a37e7f54/bin/whedon:55:in prepare' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/command.rb:27:inrun' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/invocation.rb:126:in invoke_command' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor.rb:387:indispatch' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/base.rb:466:in start' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-18b9a37e7f54/bin/whedon:116:in<top (required)>' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bin/whedon:23:in load' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bin/whedon:23:in

'

katyhuff commented 5 years ago

@albi3ro Please let me know you are able to update the paper metadata to include the missing fields ( affiliations, bibliography as suggested by @labarba above) . At that point, I'll begin assigning reviewers.

albi3ro commented 5 years ago

I updated paper.md, so it should work now.

I don't have an affiliation at the moment, so I created an affiliation named "Independent Researcher". But if you can a different protocol for no affiliations, I can change that.

katyhuff commented 5 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 5 years ago 
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
whedon commented 5 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

albi3ro commented 5 years ago

Do I need to do anything more now?

labarba commented 5 years ago

Your editor, @katyhuff, will be looking for reviewers for the submission. You could help if you find someone on this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE that you can recommend!

katyhuff commented 5 years ago

Thanks @labarba -- and @albi3ro I'm sorry for the delay. I apologize, I thought you were still working on the bibliography part of the request. @albi3ro: Please note that your bibliography still doesn't appear (now, simply because you don't reference anything).

In any case, I believe that I have identified a couple of appropriate reviewers whom I'll invite now. If you have suggestions, of course, they are more than welcome.

katyhuff commented 5 years ago

@leios : James Schloss, are you able to and interested in taking on this review for JOSE (the Journal of Open Source Education) ? This submission is in need of expertise in physics as well as familiarity with the systems and languages involved (julia, jupyter). I think you would be an excellent reviewer. Please see the JOSE reviewer guidelines for details about the JOSE review process.

katyhuff commented 5 years ago

@trallard : Tania Allard, are you able to and interested in taking on this review for JOSE (the Journal of Open Source Education) ? This submission is in need of expertise in materials as well as familiarity with the systems and languages involved (julia, jupyter). I think you would be an excellent reviewer. Please see the JOSE reviewer guidelines for details about the JOSE review process.

leios commented 5 years ago

@katyhuff There might be a slight conflict of interest here. @albi3ro Is a good friend of mine.

trallard commented 5 years ago

Hey @katyhuff I would love to take this on.

The problem is I have another review that I want to complete before going on leave on the 27th. I can try and make some advances on this (though) I cannot promise anything. Or move it forward after the 14th of August.

Would this work for y'all?

katyhuff commented 5 years ago

@leios : Thanks for letting me know. It's up to you to decide whether you can make an impartial evaluation of this work. The official policy of JOSS, and similarly JOSE is:

JOSS Conflict of Interest Policy

The definition of a conflict of Interest in peer review is a circumstance that makes you “unable to make an impartial scientific judgment or evaluation.” (PNAS Conflict of Interest Policy). JOSS is concerned with avoiding any actual conflicts of interest, and being sufficiently transparent that we avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest as well.

As a reviewer, COIs are your present or previous association with any authors of a submission: recent (past four years) collaborators in funded research or work that is published; and lifetime for the family members, business partners, and thesis student/advisor or mentor. In addition, your recent (past year) association with the same organization of a submitter is a COI, for example, being employed at the same institution.

If you have a conflict of interest with a submission, you should disclose the specific reason to the submissions’ editor. This may lead to you not being able to review the submission, but some conflicts may be recorded and then waived, and if you think you are able to make an impartial assessment of the work, you should request that the conflict be waived. For example, if you and a submitter were two of 2000 authors of a high energy physics paper but did not actually collaborate. Or if you and a submitter worked together 6 years ago, but due to delays in the publishing industry, a paper from that collaboration with both of you as authors was published 2 year ago. Or if you and a submitter are both employed by the same very large organization but in different units without any knowledge of each other.

Declaring actual, perceived, and potential conflicts of interest is required under professional ethics. If in doubt: ask the editors.```

==== So, @leios : Do you think that, despite being friends, you can make a thorough and impartial assessment of this work?

katyhuff commented 5 years ago

@trallard Thanks for letting me know. I'll try to find someone else, as it sounds like your plate is pretty full.

@albi3ro : Can you recommend anyone?

katyhuff commented 5 years ago

@lheagy : Lindsey Heagy, are you able to and interested in taking on this review for JOSE (the Journal of Open Source Education)? This submission is in need of expertise in physics as well as familiarity with the systems and languages involved (julia, jupyter). Though I know your scientific domain is somewhat outside of the materials science focused physics in this work, your experience in Julia, education, and the physical sciences make you a potentially excellent reviewer. Please see the JOSE reviewer guidelines for details about the JOSE review process.

labarba commented 5 years ago

I wonder if @IanHawke could help with this review ... Ian—this submission to JOSE consists of Jupyter notebooks using Julia, addressing physics of materials. Could you have a look and consider if you could contribute a review?

katyhuff commented 5 years ago

Thanks @labarba !

labarba commented 5 years ago

Another person who might be able to help with this JOSE review is @dga_smith (more chemistry than physics background, I think, but materials science sits at some intersection of those fields).

@dga_smith — Could you have a look at this JOSE submission and consider if you could contribute a review? Or perhaps you can think of someone else who could? Here's the article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

IanHawke commented 5 years ago

Technically I think I can do this, yes (with some brushing up). As far as timing goes I will only be able to start toward the end of next week, and probably only have time to cover the straightforward part of the checklist before having to stop for a week. I would hope to be able to comment on all the material by the end of the month. Sorry I can't promise anything faster.

lheagy commented 5 years ago

Thanks for thinking of me @katyhuff; this looks like an interesting set of resources! I am a bit conference over-loaded for the next few weeks, so realistically it would likely be mid-august before I could take a look... Please feel free to keep me on the list as a back-up, if you are still in need of someone in a few weeks time

IanHawke commented 5 years ago

A bit of a drive-by start to the review process, I'm afraid: I won't be able to follow up until a week from now.

katyhuff commented 5 years ago

@whedon assign @IanHawke as reviewer

whedon commented 5 years ago

OK, the reviewer is @IanHawke

katyhuff commented 5 years ago

Thanks for agreeing @IanHawke ! Thanks for letting me know @lheagy . I'll try for one more reviewer, but will let you know if I can't find anyone.

katyhuff commented 5 years ago

@william-pfalzgraff : William Pfalzgraff are you able to and interested in taking on this review for JOSE (the Journal of Open Source Education)? This submission is in need of expertise in materials science (physics, chemistry) as well as familiarity with the systems and languages involved (julia, jupyter). Though I know your scientific domain is somewhat outside of the materials science focus in this work, and your computational experience may not include Julia. However, your breadth of experience in other programming languages, as well as your expertise in education and the chemical sciences make you a potentially excellent reviewer. Please see the JOSE reviewer guidelines for details about the JOSE review process.

william-pfalzgraff commented 5 years ago

Hi @katyhuff. I'm currently on vacation, but I'd be able to start my review next week (the week of July 29). Would that work?

katyhuff commented 5 years ago

That would be fantastic @william-pfalzgraff . Thank you.

katyhuff commented 5 years ago

@whedon add @william-pfalzgraff as reviewer

whedon commented 5 years ago

OK, @william-pfalzgraff is now a reviewer

katyhuff commented 5 years ago

@whedon start review

whedon commented 5 years ago

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/issues/61. Feel free to close this issue now!

katyhuff commented 5 years ago

@albi3ro Thank you for your patience. I've now found reviewers, and we'll be able to start the review discussion over in #61. Please keep an eye on that issue for comments from reviewers in the next couple of weeks.

@william-pfalzgraff @IanHawke Thank you for volunteering! Let's move over to #61 where we'll conduct the review!