Closed whedon closed 4 years ago
@whedon check references
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- 10.5281/zenodo.1423046 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/n16-3020 may be missing for title: "Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier
- https://doi.org/10.1080/10618600.2014.907095 may be missing for title: Peeking inside the black box: Visualizing statistical learning with plots of individual conditional expectation
INVALID DOIs
- None
@So-Cool : could you please add the DOIs mentioned above?
Two other comments about references:
Since scikit learn is mentioned so prominently, it would be appropriate to cite their 2011 JMLR paper about the software: http://www.jmlr.org/papers/v12/pedregosa11a.html
What is the difference between this paper and the arXiv preprint referenced? Is that preprint already published elsewhere?
Thanks!
@whedon check references
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- 10.18653/v1/n16-3020 is OK
- 10.1214/aos/1013203451 is OK
- 10.1080/10618600.2014.907095 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1423046 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
@whedon generate pdf
Hi @arokem, I added the missing DOIs and referenced scikit-learn; thank you for the pointers. The arXiv preprint is an extended version of the JOSS paper with usage examples and more thorough discussion of the relevant literature. We will be revising it in the coming months and submitting it to either a journal or a conference.
If any other revisions are needed, just let me know.
Thank you. Before we proceed, could you please:
I can then move forward with accepting the submission.
Hi @So-Cool : have you had a chance to complete these steps? Any questions?
Hi @arokem, I'm merging two more PRs before creating the release, hence the delay. I should wrap it up soon. I hope that's OK with you.
Yup. Just let me know here when it settles.
Dear authors and reviewers
We wanted to notify you that in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS has decided to suspend submission of new manuscripts and to handle existing manuscripts (such as this one) on a "best efforts basis". We understand that you may need to attend to more pressing issues than completing a review or updating a repository in response to a review. If this is the case, a quick note indicating that you need to put a "pause" on your involvement with a review would be appreciated but is not required.
Thanks in advance for your understanding.
Arfon Smith, Editor in Chief, on behalf of the JOSS editorial team.
:wave: @So-Cool, just a friendly check-in to see how things are going with those last few steps outlined by @arokem?
Thanks @arfon. We've had a bit of a delay but the things are heading in the right direction now and we should wrap it up relatively soon.
Hi @arfon and @arokem,
apologies for the delay. The release tag is 0.1.0
. The DOI of the release is 10.5281/zenodo.3833199.
@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3833199 as archive
OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3833199 is the archive.
@whedon generate pdf
@whedon accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- 10.18653/v1/n16-3020 is OK
- 10.1214/aos/1013203451 is OK
- 10.1080/10618600.2014.907095 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1423046 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
:wave: @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.
Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1452
If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1452, 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 accept deposit=true
Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...
🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦
🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨
Here's what you must now do:
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘
Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...
@bernease, @osolari - many thanks for your reviews here and to @arokem for editing this submission ✨
@So-Cool - your paper is now accepted into JOSS :zap::rocket::boom:
: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.01904/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01904)
HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01904">
<img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01904/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>
reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01904/status.svg
:target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01904
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:
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