Closed whedon closed 4 years ago
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.
:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:
Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.
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
PDF failed to compile for issue #2195 with the following error:
Can't find any papers to compile :-(
Software report (experimental):
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.84 T=0.46 s (599.1 files/s, 82286.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C/C++ Header 96 3132 6419 12302
C++ 23 705 436 3392
Python 51 612 653 1949
reStructuredText 22 813 714 1616
XML 5 148 16 1014
Markdown 17 359 0 1009
CMake 37 178 363 806
YAML 19 71 34 675
GLSL 4 0 143 139
CSS 1 12 0 62
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 275 6030 8778 22964
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistical information for the repository '2195' was gathered on 2020/05/21.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:
Author Commits Insertions Deletions % of changes
Dion Häfner 44 21870 10746 17.28
Lukas Riedel 446 33015 29191 32.96
Santiago 122 7213 8655 8.41
Santiago Ospina 257 39854 27048 35.45
Santiago Ospina De L 8 258 304 0.30
Santiago Ospina De L 71 5378 5199 5.60
Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:
Author Rows Stability Age % in comments
Dion Häfner 3503 16.0 20.9 16.27
Lukas Riedel 11796 35.7 14.9 20.63
Santiago 1156 16.0 15.8 15.22
Santiago Ospina 11141 28.0 15.7 16.85
Santiago Ospina De L 1985 36.9 13.4 26.50
Hi @peanutfun! Do you have a JOSS paper somewhere in your repo, or maybe another repo? Our bot can't find it.
Hi @meg-simula! Would you be able to edit this submission?
Yes, can do. (But public holiday here until Monday, will follow up then.)
@whedon assign @meg-simula as editor
OK, the editor is @meg-simula
@whedon generate pdf from branch joss-paper
Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch joss-paper. Reticulating splines etc...
Hello everybody and thanks for having us! The paper is located in the joss-paper
branch of the repository in order to quickly update it during the review process. I just had it compiled from there.
As potential reviewers and I would like to suggest rreinecke
, mikaem
, gassmoeller
, dvalters
, and pratikvn
Thank you for the submission @peanutfun, I look forward to taking a closer look at DORiE. List of potential reviewers also much appreciated.
Before we move this along, please note that the JOSS guidelines stipulate a paper length of 250-1000 words:
https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#what-should-my-paper-contain
As far as I can tell, the current DORiE paper is substantially longer than this. Could you please revise? Perhaps some of the text could enter in the DORiE documentation?
Hi @meg-simula! 👋 You are correct. Excluding formulae, the current manuscript comprises some 3000 words, with ca. 1300 words in the longest section "Discontinuous Galerkin Discretization".
To the best of our knowledge, applying the described discretization method to the physical problem and providing the software implementing it is a novelty. We therefore included the mentioned section in the paper, as potential readers might have a strong interest not only in the software, but also the numerical methods. Currently, the documentation is hosted online but in general, users will have to build it locally after a lengthy installation process which might be a major hurdle to some (see README.md#manual-installation). Additionally, the paper will potentially receive a more thorough review than the documentation. We thus would still prefer keeping this section in the paper. However, we could declare it an "Appendix" section of the paper and move it to its end, if that is possible.
Apart from this section, I see few opportunities for shortening the paper substantially:
What do you think? Would exceeding the word limit be acceptable in our case?
I completely understand your reasoning @peanutfun. If the discretization is novel, I would suggest that you consider submitting a manuscript describing those bits (and perhaps other material) to a suitable venue. JOSS papers are only expected to contain a limited set of metadata (see example below), a Statement of Need, Summary, Acknowledgements, and References sections. You can look at an example accepted paper at the aforementioned link.
@whedon generate pdf from branch joss-paper
Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch joss-paper. Reticulating splines etc...
@whedon generate pdf from branch joss-paper
Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch joss-paper. Reticulating splines etc...
Fair enough, @meg-simula! We were hoping to put all this information on the software in one publication, but I understand that the numerics exceed the scope of a JOSS paper.
We drastically pruned the originally submitted paper to a word count of 1090, including the figure captions (see the latest version compiled by @whedon). The paper now contains a summary, a background section giving the statement of need, a feature overview, a section on past research, a shortened showcase section and acknowledgements.
Also, sorry for the noise in this thread! I had @whedon compile the latest version and immediately noticed a typo 🙈
Great, thanks @peanutfun. This looks very much ready for review. I'll reach out to reviewers and get back to you.
@rreinecke, @mikaem, @gassmoeller, @dvalters, @pratikvn @: Would you like to review this submission for JOSS? Feel free to take a look at our reviewer guidelines here:
https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html .
@meg-simula I am happy to review this paper. Review should happen within the next few weeks.
@meg-simula , I am happy to review this paper.
@pratikvn @gassmoeller Excellent! I'll start the review issue. Let's move the discussion over there.
@whedon assign @gassmoeller as reviewer
OK, @gassmoeller is now a reviewer
@whedon add @pratikvn as reviewer
OK, @pratikvn is now a reviewer
@whedon start review
OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/2313.
Submitting author: @peanutfun (Lukas Riedel) Repository: https://ts-gitlab.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/dorie/dorie Version: v2.0 Editor: @meg-simula Reviewers: @gassmoeller, @pratikvn Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng
:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:
Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @peanutfun. Currently, there isn't an JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
@peanutfun if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).
Editor instructions
The JOSS submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type: