[REVIEW]: CMasher: Scientific colormaps for making accessible, informative and 'cmashing' plots

whedon commented 4 years ago

Submitting author: @1313e (Ellert van der Velden) Repository: https://github.com/1313e/CMasher Version: v1.2.2 Editor: @mbobra Reviewer: @tacaswell, @wafels Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3637633

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/16f291edc5c4fb61e31e6eef45bb558a"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/16f291edc5c4fb61e31e6eef45bb558a/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/16f291edc5c4fb61e31e6eef45bb558a/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/16f291edc5c4fb61e31e6eef45bb558a)

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

@tacaswell & @wafels, 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 @mbobra know.

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

Review checklist for @tacaswell

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

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] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@1313e) 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 functionality 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] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[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] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

Review checklist for @wafels

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

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] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@1313e) 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 functionality 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] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[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] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

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/1278
Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02004
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

kthyng commented 4 years ago

Congratulations to @1313e on your new publication! Thanks to editor @mbobra and reviewers @tacaswell and @wafels — we rely on your time and expertise.

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.02004/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02004)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02004">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02004/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02004/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02004

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

1313e commented 4 years ago

@kthyng I am not entirely sure why, but when I go to the paper here, the citation information and the BibTeX entry are kinda messed up (wrong year, volume and issue). I initially thought that this is maybe caused by the paper just being published, but the other just-published papers do not seem to have that problem. Any ideas what this is?

arfon commented 4 years ago

Any ideas what this is?

I'm not entirely sure @1313e. I've fixed this manually for now and will investigate.

mbobra commented 4 years ago

It also looks like the tweet has the wrong citation information.

arfon commented 4 years ago

It also looks like the tweet has the wrong citation information.

Still? The information probably took a little while to update on Twitter's side but looks good to me now. Can you check again @mbobra?

mbobra commented 4 years ago

I am just clicking on the link above that says "Tweet for this paper". It still says "1(1), 200..." which cannot be right 😟. Edit: I am clicking from my laptop (the link may look different on mobile).

1313e commented 4 years ago

I am just clicking on the link above that says "Tweet for this paper". It still says "1(1), 200..." which cannot be right . Edit: I am clicking from my laptop (the link may look different on mobile).

The tweet does not contain any citation info?

mbobra commented 4 years ago

This is what I am seeing: citation

1313e commented 4 years ago

Oh, that. That will never get fixed as those previews only get generated once.

mbobra commented 4 years ago

Ohhhh, I did not know that 😳 Thanks for letting me know!

arfon commented 4 years ago

Yeah, I think this is cached. The only thing we can do here is delete the original tweet an resend it from the JOSS account (which I'm more than happy to).

Lemme know what you'd like us to do @1313e.

1313e commented 4 years ago

As I doubt anyone will use citation information from a preview, don't bother.

1313e commented 4 years ago

@arfon Do you, by any chance, know how long it usually takes for ADS to index new JOSS papers? I was looking at ADS, and it seems that it indexes new JOSS papers that it flags as 'astronomy-related' incredibly quickly, whereas other JOSS papers take quite some time. (All JOSS papers published this year that are indexed by ADS, which is 5 in total, are flagged as 'astronomy-related', which I doubt is a coincidence.)

arfon commented 4 years ago

I don't sorry. Last time I checked it was every couple of months.

mbobra commented 4 years ago

@1313e They've indexed papers from February 2020, so I don't think it should take too long. If you want to speed up the process, you can ask ADS to index your paper using this form and they will likely approve it right away.

openjournals / joss-reviews