[REVIEW]: Blimpy: Breakthrough Listen I/O Methods for Python

whedon commented 5 years ago

Submitting author: @telegraphic (Danny Price) Repository: https://github.com/UCBerkeleySETI/blimpy Version: 1.4.1 Editor: @xuanxu Reviewer: @garrettj403, @zhampel Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3472084

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/e58ef21f0a924041bf9438fd75f8aed0"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/e58ef21f0a924041bf9438fd75f8aed0/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/e58ef21f0a924041bf9438fd75f8aed0/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/e58ef21f0a924041bf9438fd75f8aed0)

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

@garrettj403 & @zhampel, 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/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @xuanxu know.

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

Review checklist for @garrettj403

Conflict of interest

[x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS 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 JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Version: 1.4.1
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@telegraphic) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[x] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @zhampel

Conflict of interest

[x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS 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 JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Version: 1.4.1
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@telegraphic) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[x] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

xuanxu commented 4 years ago

@whedon set 1.4.1 as version

whedon commented 4 years ago

OK. 1.4.1 is the version.

xuanxu commented 4 years ago

Thanks @telegraphic, everything looks good, here are the next steps:

Please archive the latest release in Zenodo
Check the Zenodo deposit has the correct metadata: title and authors names should match the paper; you may also add your ORCID.

Once you do that please report here the Zenodo DOI.

telegraphic commented 4 years ago

Done!

10.5281/zenodo.3472084

xuanxu commented 4 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3472084 as archive

whedon commented 4 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3472084 is the archive.

xuanxu commented 4 years ago

Everything looks ready 🎉 Pinging @openjournals/joss-eics for final acceptance

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 4 years ago

@telegraphic some minor points about the paper

[ ] Check your affiliations. The second instance of Nijmegen is spelled wrong, it currently says Nimegen. Also I believe the correct affiliation there should probably be Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Please also add United States of America, and spell out the Netherlands.
[ ] In your repo and the Zenodo archive Blimpy is written with a capital B. The paper uses a lower case latter. Can you amend the paper to use a capital letter too? Alternatively change everything to have a lower case letter instead, whatever you prefer.
[ ] Give your paper a final check again yourself as we'll shortly process formal acceptance.

telegraphic commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 4 years ago

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

telegraphic commented 4 years ago

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Thanks, just made the suggested changes and regenerated the PDF.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 4 years ago

@whedon accept

whedon commented 4 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon commented 4 years ago


OK DOIs

- 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8d1b is OK
- 10.3847/2515-5172/aaa6c9 is OK
- 10.3847/2515-5172/ab010b is OK
- 10.1017/S1473550417000465 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aad005 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon commented 4 years ago

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1037

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1037, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 4 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon commented 4 years ago

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

whedon commented 4 years ago

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

whedon commented 4 years ago

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1038
Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01554
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

whedon commented 4 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://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01554/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01554)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01554">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01554/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01554/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01554

This is how it will look in your documentation:

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:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 4 years ago

Thanks @garrettj403 and @zhampel for reviewing this work! Thanks also @xuanxu for editing this one. @telegraphic congratulations on your paper.

openjournals / joss-reviews