search

openjournals / joss-reviews

Reviews for the Journal of Open Source Software
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
721 stars 38 forks source link

[REVIEW]: open_iA: A tool for processing and visual analysis of industrial computed tomography datasets #1185

Closed whedon closed 5 years ago

whedon commented 5 years ago

Submitting author: @codeling (Bernhard Fröhler) Repository: https://github.com/3dct/open_iA Version: 2019.03 Editor: @katyhuff Reviewer: @trallard, @behollister Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.2591999

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/efb86983da60c89c5e7ef74479be45c6"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/efb86983da60c89c5e7ef74479be45c6/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/efb86983da60c89c5e7ef74479be45c6/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/efb86983da60c89c5e7ef74479be45c6)

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

@trallard & @behollister, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

  1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
  2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @katyhuff know.

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨

Review checklist for @trallard

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @behollister

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

codeling commented 5 years ago

Thanks @katyhuff for the quick reply!

Some minor changes are generally fine, but I'm confused by your comments about the DOI you made, so I'm not sure what the case is here. It seems that the intermediate step, required due to your dated releasing system, included folding in other edits that were never involved in the review. The two comments on this seem to be slightly conflicting about the magnitude of those changes:

The main issue probably is that I didn't think of keeping master at only what we submitted for JOSS plus the changes resulting from review comments. It would of course have been possible to keep those changes in another branch for the time being. Instead, some bug fixes and minor enhancements were intermixed with the JOSS review changes, sorry for this. Sorry also for the confusing comment about "a lot has changed". To clarify, the changes to the core functionality are actually minor, you probably wouldn't notice them if you hadn't used the program extensively before. However, since we do these dated version tags, it just didn't "feel" right then, to update a tag from December 2018 to point to the version created in March 2019 with those fixes.

Regarding the DOI confusion:

Edit: Updated DOI - using DOI referencing all (future) versions of open_iA

As far as I got it there are two zenodo DOI's you get:

I did the edit when I realized that there was such a non-version-specific DOI, and used it here. But I suppose for the submission you would need the one for the specific submitted artifact?

codeling commented 5 years ago

@katyhuff adding the username mention as an edit doesn't seem to have triggered a notification, trying again...

katyhuff commented 5 years ago

(sorry for the delay in responding - am still on vacation). Thanks for the explanation. I think this can be accepted with the DOI including your interleaved changes, as they seem mostly minor. I'll move forward with 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:

katyhuff commented 5 years ago

@whedon check references

whedon commented 5 years ago 
Attempting to check references...
whedon commented 5 years ago 

OK DOIs

- 10.1111/cgf.12896 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2010.214 is OK
- 10.1109/PACIFICVIS.2015.7156377 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2016.2582158 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cag.2015.04.001 is OK
- 10.1109/PacificVis.2014.52 is OK
- 10.1111/cgf.12895 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2013.177 is OK
- 10.1109/VAST.2016.7883516 is OK
- 10.1111/cgf.12365 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2018.2864510 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
katyhuff commented 5 years ago

@whedon set 2019.03 as version

whedon commented 5 years ago

OK. 2019.03 is the version.

katyhuff commented 5 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.2591999 as archive

whedon commented 5 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.2591999 is the archive.

katyhuff commented 5 years ago

@whedon accept

whedon commented 5 years ago 
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
codeling commented 5 years ago

sorry for the delay in responding - am still on vacation

Ah yes forgot that - sorry for bothering you on vacation!

I think this can be accepted with the DOI including your interleaved changes, as they seem mostly minor. I'll move forward with that.

Great, thanks!

whedon commented 5 years ago

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/569

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/569, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true
whedon commented 5 years ago 

OK DOIs

- 10.1111/cgf.12896 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2010.214 is OK
- 10.1109/PACIFICVIS.2015.7156377 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2016.2582158 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cag.2015.04.001 is OK
- 10.1109/PacificVis.2014.52 is OK
- 10.1111/cgf.12895 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2013.177 is OK
- 10.1109/VAST.2016.7883516 is OK
- 10.1111/cgf.12365 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2018.2864510 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
katyhuff commented 5 years ago

Thanks @codeling for your submission, patience, and cooperation with the process!

Thank you @trallard and @behollister for your detailed reviews!

This paper should be ready to accept @openjournals/joss-eics - over to you!

ooo[bot] commented 5 years ago

:wave: Hey @katyhuff...

Letting you know, @trallard is currently OOO until Sunday, April 7th 2019. :heart:

arfon commented 5 years ago

@whedon accept

whedon commented 5 years ago 
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
whedon commented 5 years ago 

OK DOIs

- 10.1111/cgf.12896 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2010.214 is OK
- 10.1109/PACIFICVIS.2015.7156377 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2016.2582158 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cag.2015.04.001 is OK
- 10.1109/PacificVis.2014.52 is OK
- 10.1111/cgf.12895 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2013.177 is OK
- 10.1109/VAST.2016.7883516 is OK
- 10.1111/cgf.12365 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2018.2864510 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
whedon commented 5 years ago

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/570

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/570, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true
arfon 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 JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

  1. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/571
  2. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01185
  3. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.

  4. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

    Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

arfon commented 5 years ago

@trallard, @behollister - many thanks for your reviews here and to @katyhuff for editing this submission ✨

@codeling - your paper is now accepted into JOSS :zap::rocket::boom:

ooo[bot] commented 5 years ago

:wave: Hey @arfon...

Letting you know, @trallard is currently OOO until Sunday, April 7th 2019. :heart:

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](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01185/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01185)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01185">
  <img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01185/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01185/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01185

This is how it will look in your documentation:

DOI

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software 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: