[REVIEW]: Frackit: a framework for stochastic fracture network generation and analysis

whedon commented 4 years ago

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:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/99f26d5187d1d446abf327d1cb5924be"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/99f26d5187d1d446abf327d1cb5924be/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/99f26d5187d1d446abf327d1cb5924be/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/99f26d5187d1d446abf327d1cb5924be)

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:

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 @diehlpk know.

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

Review checklist for @ilyasst

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 (@dglaeser) 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?

dglaeser commented 3 years ago

@diehlpk, I changed the title. Sorry for that!

diehlpk commented 3 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.4315059 as archive

whedon commented 3 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.4315059 is the archive.

diehlpk commented 3 years ago

@dglaeser No worries.

diehlpk commented 3 years ago

@whedon accept

whedon commented 3 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon commented 3 years ago

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.18419/opus-289 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2015.04.012 is OK
- 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
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2020.02.012 is OK
- 10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.10.031 is OK
- 10.1007/s13137-019-0116-8 is OK
- 10.1007/s10596-020-10002-5 is OK
- 10.1002/nme.2579 is OK
- 10.1002/nme.6238 is OK
- 10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.10.036 is OK
- 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
- 10.1007/s13137-019-0117-7 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2019.06.014 is OK
- 10.1007/s10596-018-9778-9 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2017.12.003 is OK
- 10.1007/s12665-014-3211-z is OK
- 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
- 10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.12.024 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2015.08.001 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon commented 3 years ago

: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/1973

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1973, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

dglaeser commented 3 years ago

@diehlpk, thanks! One question, how does this last step work? To me it shows that the created issues has no assignees and when I click on @openjournals/joss-eics it says that that page is unavailable?

diehlpk commented 3 years ago

@dglaeser please wait for the EIC to check your paper one last time. After that the paper will be officially published.

dglaeser commented 3 years ago

ok, thank you! Sorry for bothering, I was just curious how the system works. I guess someone behind @openjournals/joss-eics gets notified about the new issue in the papers repository.

diehlpk commented 3 years ago

No worries. Yes, some EIC will do a final check, e.g. check if the DOI and version matches, and after that the paper will be published and you receive a notification and can share the paper.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 3 years ago

@diehlpk @dglaeser I've check the archive and paper and will now proceed to accept this work in JOSS. Congratulations.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 3 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon commented 3 years ago

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

whedon commented 3 years ago

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

whedon commented 3 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/1977
Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02291
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 3 years ago

Congratulations @dglaeser on your publication! Thanks for your review efforts @ilyasst, @ctdegroot!!!! And thanks @diehlpk for editing this work!

whedon commented 3 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.02291/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02291)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02291">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02291/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02291/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02291

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

dglaeser commented 3 years ago

Thank you so much @diehlpk, @ilyasst, @ctdegroot and @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman!!

openjournals / joss-reviews