Closed whedon closed 4 years ago
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @bernease, @ @osolari it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper :tada:.
:star: Important :star:
If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿
To fix this do the following two things:
For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
@whedon commands
For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
@whedon generate pdf
Attempting to check references...
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
OK DOIs
- None
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
PDF failed to compile for issue #1904 with the following error:
pandoc-citeproc: reference osolari not found Error producing PDF. ! TeX capacity exceeded, sorry [input stack size=5000]. \reserved@a ->\def \reserved@a *{\let \@xs@assign \@xs@expand@and@detokenize... l.324 }
Looks like we failed to compile the PDF
👋 @arokem - I can't quite understand the status of this review - can you let me know where it is?
@whedon generate pdf
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
PDF failed to compile for issue #1904 with the following error:
pandoc-citeproc: reference osolari not found Error producing PDF. ! TeX capacity exceeded, sorry [input stack size=5000]. \reserved@a ->\def \reserved@a *{\let \@xs@assign \@xs@expand@and@detokenize... l.324 }
Looks like we failed to compile the PDF
👋 @arfon - something seems messed up here - the reference that pandoc mentions isn't in the paper, I don't think, but is one of the reviewers (?!) And the reviewer info in the first comment in this issue seems to have an extra @
- Any ideas?
@whedon generate pdf
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
👋 @arfon - something seems messed up here - the reference that pandoc mentions isn't in the paper, I don't think, but is one of the reviewers (?!) And the reviewer info in the first comment in this issue seems to have an extra @ - Any ideas?
Very weird. I'm not sure what's going on here. I've manually fixed up the review issue at the top. Also, the compilation error is related to the extra @
which was then being fed into Pandoc (as we now include reviewer names in the compiled papers).
Thanks @arfon
👋 @arokem - this is now ready for you to start the review process
Thanks!
@bernease, @osolari: have you had a chance to take a look at the software?
The paper pdf should be ready for your review as well now.
@bernease, @osolari: where does this review currently stand? Have you had a chance to take a look?
I am currently finishing my review.
Hi, I wasn't able to install the package. Did others manage to install it using simple pip?
@whedon @arokem I finished my review, but could not install the package using pip. Have you given it a try?
@bernease I finished my review, but could not install the package using pip. Have you given it a try?
@osolari, have you tried pip install fat-forensics
?
yes!
@osolari, could you please paste here the log of executing this command?
ERROR: Could not find a version that satisfies the requirement fat-forensics (from versions: none) ERROR: No matching distribution found for fat-forensics
nvm. I tried it on my own machine and it was installed. sorry!
Are you trying to install it on Windows? At the moment only Linux and MacOS are supported. You may try to install it directly from sources (which may or may not work):
pip install git+https://github.com/fat-forensics/fat-forensics.git
both machines were Macs. Solved thanks!
Btw, should I just ping @whedon when I'm done?
@whedon @arfon @arokem I'm done with the review!
Hi @osolari, Thanks for your review! I see that there are still two boxes left unchecked in your review (functionality and references). Is this because you still have issues with these two items? If these are not properly addressed right now, could you please make some comments about the changes you believe need to be made?
Sorry I forgot to check functionality.
About the other two though. I think a brief literature review of the field with more references would help me understand the importance of the work better. Currently the report only references FATFORENSIC itself.
*by check I meant "check off".
@arokem I was wondering if I would receive an email indicating that I have completed my review service. :-)
Hey @osolari : have your previously-raised concerns (here) been addressed?
@arokem no it hasn't. :-)
Hey @bernease : have you had a chance to take a look at this? Thanks!
@arokem Would someone please confirm that I have submitted the review?
Hi @osolari : I believe that the authors are currently still waiting for comments from @bernease to proceed with their revision. I will ping her by email to see when she might have the chance to take a look.
Sorry for letting this fall off my radar. I can have the feedback into you by EOD Thursday conservatively, perhaps earlier if I'm able to clear some time later today.
I have completed the review to the best of my ability.
I have some concerns about the lack of references to related work as well as discussion of related software in the field, leading me keep these two fields unchecked for now. There is a singular reference to a pre-print manuscript describing the FATForensics software package in depth, Sokol, Santos-Rodriguez, and Flach (2019).
At minimum, would like to see directly comparative software packages in Python (e.g., eli5, AI Fairness 360) referenced and compared to FATForensics in JOSS submission. As the article stands, it is difficult to see where this work fits into the landscape of software without consulting the other manuscript from the authors. Should that be sufficient, I will mark these two criteria as met.
Thank you for the review, @bernease. I'll address your and @osolari's comments over the weekend and update the paper. I'll make sure to let you know when this is done.
@whedon generate pdf
We revised the paper taking into consideration your feedback and comments. @osolari and @bernease, please let us know if you find something that we can improve.
I have updated (and completed all marks) based on the updates provided by the author.
@whedon check DOI
I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:
@whedon commands
@whedon commands
Here are some things you can ask me to do:
# List all of Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands
# Assign a GitHub user as the sole reviewer of this submission
@whedon assign @username as reviewer
# Add a GitHub user to the reviewers of this submission
@whedon add @username as reviewer
# Remove a GitHub user from the reviewers of this submission
@whedon remove @username as reviewer
# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors
# List of reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers
# Change editorial assignment
@whedon assign @username as editor
# Set the software archive DOI at the top of the issue e.g.
@whedon set 10.0000/zenodo.00000 as archive
# Set the software version at the top of the issue e.g.
@whedon set v1.0.1 as version
# Open the review issue
@whedon start review
EDITORIAL TASKS
# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf
# Compile the paper from alternative branch
@whedon generate pdf from branch custom-branch-name
# Remind an author or reviewer to return to a review after a
# certain period of time (supported units days and weeks)
@whedon remind @reviewer in 2 weeks
# Ask Whedon to do a dry run of accepting the paper and depositing with Crossref
@whedon accept
# Ask Whedon to check the references for missing DOIs
@whedon check references
# Ask Whedon to check repository statistics for the submitted software
@whedon check repository
EiC TASKS
# Invite an editor to edit a submission (sending them an email)
@whedon invite @editor as editor
# Reject a paper
@whedon reject
# Withdraw a paper
@whedon withdraw
# Ask Whedon to actually accept the paper and deposit with Crossref
@whedon accept deposit=true
Submitting author: @So-Cool (Kacper Sokol) Repository: https://github.com/fat-forensics/fat-forensics Version: 0.0.1 Editor: @arokem Reviewer: @bernease, @osolari Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3833199
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
@bernease & @osolari, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @arokem know.
✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨
Review checklist for @bernease
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
Review checklist for @osolari
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper