Closed whedon closed 3 years ago
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @ilyasst it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper :tada:.
: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.
: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
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- 10.18419/opus-289 is OK
- doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.04.012 is OK
- doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.08.065 is OK
- 10.5194/hess-23-19-2019 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2017.02.002 is OK
- 10.1016/j.advwatres.2011.03.007 is OK
- doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.10.031 is OK
- doi.org/10.1007/s13137-019-0116-8 is OK
- 10.1002/nme.2579 is OK
- 10.1002/nme.6238 is OK
- 10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.10.036 is OK
- doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106350 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2014.12.047 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2017.07.041 is OK
- doi.org/10.1007/s13137-019-0117-7 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2019.06.014 is OK
- doi.org/10.1007/s10596-018-9778-9 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2017.12.003 is OK
- doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3211-z is OK
- doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2011.08.037 is OK
- 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2011.01.038 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.068 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
@johntfoster, 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 @diehlpk know.
✨ Please try and complete your review in the next six weeks ✨
@whedon generate pdf
@ilyasst and @johntfoster How is your review going?
Hi @ilyasst can you estimate when you finish the review?
Hopefully in a week or two.
Ilyass
On Jul 20 2020, at 9:48 am, Patrick Diehl notifications@github.com wrote:
Hi @ilyasst (https://github.com/ilyasst) can you estimate when you finish the review? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/2291#issuecomment-661051101), or unsubscribe (https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADMMM7N3DFROS6FQHSMJO3R4RDMRANCNFSM4NTSI3MA).
Hi @johntfoster can you estimate when you finish the review?
I'll also shoot for the end of next week. Sorry for the delay.
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 9:25 AM Patrick Diehl notifications@github.com wrote:
Hi @johntfoster https://github.com/johntfoster can you estimate when you finish the review?
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/2291#issuecomment-662484456, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEQR3PWVWTUVOGZXAJUUXLR43ZE3ANCNFSM4NTSI3MA .
This message is from an external sender. Learn more about why this matters. https://ut.service-now.com/sp?id=kb_article&number=KB0011401
@ilyasst Thanks for finishing the review. You are done with the review. You will get a notification once we paper is published.
Hi @johntfoster could you please estimate when you intend to finish the review?
Thank you all for your efforts! Let me know if there is anything I can do to help!
@dglaeser We are waiting for the review of the second reviewer and as long as he has no remarks you are good.
@dglaeser Can you recommend someone on your community as a potential reviewer?
I would have one person in mind, do you want me to tag him here or send you an email adress?
I would have one person in mind, do you want me to tag him here or send you an email adress?
Put his name here without the @ and I will ask him.
I was thinking of Eirik Keilegavlen (keileg on GitHub).
Hi @keileg would you be interested to review this paper?
Sure, I can have a look. This looks like an interesting review process, in addition to the paper itself.
@whedon add @keileg as reviewer
OK, @keileg is now a reviewer
@diehlpk having read the COI policy, there are one or two things to clarify. Do I write here or in an email?
@diehlpk having read the COI policy, there are one or two things to clarify. Do I write here or in an email?
If you feel comfortable, please write them here.
No problem, it is all public:
Personally, I am confident I will give an unbiased evaluation of the paper despite the above points, but I don't know what the journal policy is in such cases.
No problem, it is all public:
1. Over the last 2-3 years I have collaborated with the first and second author of the paper on a benchmarking problem. This has resulted in two manuscripts on arXiv (a [benchmark specification](https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.06926) and a draft [paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.07005)), the latter of which is under review in a journal. 2. The fourth author has an adjoint position in my research group, and will be co-advisor for a new PhD student of mine.
Personally, I am confident I will give an unbiased evaluation of the paper despite the above points, but I don't know what the journal policy is in such cases.
@keileg I think the recent immediate collaborators results in a conflict. Could you point me to a different reviewer?
@whedon remove @keileg as reviewer
OK, @keileg is no longer a reviewer
@johntfoster Are you still interested to do the review? If not could you recommend a new reviewer?
No problem, it is all public:
1. Over the last 2-3 years I have collaborated with the first and second author of the paper on a benchmarking problem. This has resulted in two manuscripts on arXiv (a [benchmark specification](https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.06926) and a draft [paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.07005)), the latter of which is under review in a journal. 2. The fourth author has an adjoint position in my research group, and will be co-advisor for a new PhD student of mine.
Personally, I am confident I will give an unbiased evaluation of the paper despite the above points, but I don't know what the journal policy is in such cases.
@keileg I think the recent immediate collaborators results in a conflict. Could you point me to a different reviewer?
Okay.
You may want to try Michael Sargado, GitHub user name jmsargado.
Hi @jmsargado would you be interested to review this paper?
Hi @katyhuff @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman @moorepants would you be interested to review this paper?
Apologies, I'm trying to get to it. I've been very busy.
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 9:02 AM Patrick Diehl notifications@github.com wrote:
@johntfoster https://github.com/johntfoster Are you still interested to do the review? If not could you recommend a new reviewer?
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/2291#issuecomment-681968441, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEQR3KBHJD6FLGCKRO5L6LSCZROHANCNFSM4NTSI3MA .
This message is from an external sender. Learn more about why this matters. https://ut.service-now.com/sp?id=kb_article&number=KB0011401
I'm sorry I won't have the bandwidth or the expertise to do this review.
@diehlpk sorry I cannot review this at this time.
Hi @katyhuff @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman @moorepants would you be interested to review this paper?
No, I am already committed to other reviews.
@diehlpk I'm sorry, this is not my field.
Looking through the joss reviewer list (and avoiding topic editors, who are usually swamped anyway), I see some candidates with some expertise in fractures, geomechanics, structural mechanics, solid mechanics etc.. Perhaps you have already considered bhajay, whimian, corentin-dev, yangbai90 iagolemos1, thelfer, mattkram?
@whedon add @ctdegroot as reviewer
OK, @ctdegroot is now a reviewer
@ctdegroot, 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 @diehlpk know.
✨ Please try and complete your review in the next six weeks ✨
Hi @ctdegroot and @johntfoster how is your review going?
@diehlpk I am unable to check of items in the list above...
@whedon re-invite @ctdegroot as reviewer
The reviewer already has a pending invite.
@ctdegroot please accept the invite by clicking this link: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations
@diehlpk I am unable to check of items in the list above...
@ctdegroot I invited you again. The invitation expires after two weeks.
@ctdegroot Is it working for you ?
@johntfoster Would you be fine with removing you from the list of reviewers, since I found a second one?
@ctdegroot Could you please tell me your timeline for this review?
Yes, please do. And I apologize for not being able to complete a timely review. I really thought I could when I accepted.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 9:04 AM Patrick Diehl notifications@github.com wrote:
@johntfoster https://github.com/johntfoster Would you be fine with removing you from the list of reviewers, since I found a second one?
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/2291#issuecomment-719571066, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEQR3IUHGSDY2AJBNZMZGLSNLBU5ANCNFSM4NTSI3MA .
This message is from an external sender. Learn more about why this matters. https://ut.service-now.com/sp?id=kb_article&number=KB0011401
Submitting author: @dglaeser (Dennis Gläser) Repository: https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/tools/frackit Version: v1.2 Editor: @diehlpk Reviewers: @ilyasst, @ctdegroot Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.4315059
: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.
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
@ilyasst, 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 @diehlpk know.
✨ Please try and complete your review in the next six weeks ✨
Review checklist for @ilyasst
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper