Closed whedon closed 3 years ago
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/0005-1098(89)90019-8 is OK
- 10.1080/00207178908559683 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ymssp.2015.12.031 is OK
- 10.1109/access.2019.2926057 is OK
- 10.1016/s0307-904x(03)00071-4 is OK
- 10.1016/j.neucom.2015.08.022 is OK
- 10.1109/tbme.2002.803507 is OK
- 10.1016/b978-0-12-811788-0.00008-1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.automatica.2020.109099 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
@wilsonrljr I've reviewed your paper and ask you to make these last minor changes:
[x] Please add a country to your affiliation
[x] The figure axis font for figure 1 is very small for the bottom figure. I recommend you increase the font and update the picture.
[x] Please edit the ZENODO archive meta data to match that of the paper, i.e. the title and author list has to match that of the paper. (@dpsanders for future reference please check this before proceeding to recommend acceptance, thanks. )
[x] Your paper is about to be processed for acceptance. Please thoroughly read through it once more yourself. .
Let me know when you've made these changes. Thanks.
Kevin Moerman AEiC JOSS
@whedon generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Thank you for reviewing the paper.
Let me know if you need anything else.
@whedon accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/0005-1098(89)90019-8 is OK
- 10.1080/00207178908559683 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ymssp.2015.12.031 is OK
- 10.1109/access.2019.2926057 is OK
- 10.1016/s0307-904x(03)00071-4 is OK
- 10.1016/j.neucom.2015.08.022 is OK
- 10.1109/tbme.2002.803507 is OK
- 10.1016/b978-0-12-811788-0.00008-1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.automatica.2020.109099 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/1772
If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1772, 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...
: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.02384/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02384)
HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02384">
<img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02384/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>
reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02384/status.svg
:target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02384
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:
Thanks for your review efforts @Shibabrat, @dawbarton!! And thanks @dpsanders for editing this one!
Congratulations on the paper @wilsonrljr ! :tada:
Thanks @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman.
Congratulations @wilsonrljr on your nice paper!
And many thanks to @dawbarton and @Shibabrat for your hard work on the reviews!
Many thanks @dpsanders, @dawbarton, @Shibabrat and @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman! All of you have contributed to the effort to obtain the this version of the paper.
Submitting author: @wilsonrljr (Wilson Rocha Lacerda Junior) Repository: https://github.com/wilsonrljr/sysidentpy Version: 0.1.2 Editor: @dpsanders Reviewers: @Shibabrat, @dawbarton Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.4026516
: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
@Shibabrat and @dawbarton, 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 @dpsanders know.
✨ Please try and complete your review in the next six weeks ✨
Review checklist for @Shibabrat
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
[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 @dawbarton
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper