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 #2549 with the following error:
Can't find any papers to compile :-(
@whedeon check repository from branch joss
@whedon generate pdf from branch joss
Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch joss. Reticulating splines etc...
@whedon check references from branch joss
Attempting to check references... from custom branch joss
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/j.physd.2015.07.006 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-9-2793-2016 is OK
- 10.1007/s13351-018-8012-y is OK
- 10.1145/2833157.2833162 is OK
- 10.5194/npg-27-307-2020 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0469(1963)020<0130:DNF>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1600-0870.1984.tb00230.x is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.151 is OK
- 10.1029/2019MS001652 is OK
- 10.1007/s10955-020-02525-z is OK
- 10.1002/qj.3594 is OK
- 10.1007/s00382-020-05313-3 is OK
- 10.3402/tellusa.v41i4.11842 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- https://doi.org/10.2142/biophys.48.324 may be missing for title: Isca
- https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511617652.004 may be missing for title: Predictability: A problem partly solved
INVALID DOIs
- 10.1175/1520-0469(1987)044%3C3282:TOMEAW%3E2.0.CO;2 is INVALID
- 10.1175/1520-0493(1982)110%3C1105:DOWRQS%3E2.0.CO;2 is INVALID
@whedon check repository
Software report (experimental):
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.84 T=0.30 s (193.9 files/s, 45590.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVG 4 4 4 2937
Python 17 1058 1792 2480
reStructuredText 20 373 387 454
Jupyter Notebook 8 0 3037 439
TeX 1 34 0 385
Markdown 1 46 0 97
DOS Batch 1 8 1 26
YAML 2 5 4 23
Bourne Shell 3 8 0 15
make 1 4 9 9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 58 1540 5234 6865
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistical information for the repository '2549' was gathered on 2020/08/05.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:
Author Commits Insertions Deletions % of changes
Jonathan Demaeyer 18 6983 1653 100.00
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
Jonathan Demaeyer 5330 76.3 4.0 6.45
π @jodemaey
π @harpolea - The authors suggested you as the editor - are you willing to take on another submission?
@whedon invited @harpolea as editor
I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:
@whedon commands
@danielskatz I'd be happy to edit this submission!
@whedon assign me as editor
OK, the editor is @harpolea
@jodemaey do you have any suggestions for potential reviewers? If so, then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). 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).
We suggest Eviatar Bach (eviatarbach) and Ryan Abernathey (rabernat).
@jodemaey thanks!
:wave: @eviatarbach & @rabernat, would either of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html
Yes, I would be happy to review!
Great, thanks @eviatarbach!
@whedon assign @eviatarbach as reviewer
OK, @eviatarbach is now a reviewer
* please check the DOIs as mentioned in a previous comment - whedon is not always right, but makes suggestions. If you make changes in your bib, enter the whedon commands I used above to regenerate the PDF and recheck the references
Here whedon is not right about the missing DOIs. The one for the reference to the Lorenz 96 paper points in fact to a re-edition of it in 2006 and I want to point to the original 1996 paper which has no DOI. The one about Isca is also wrong. To my knowledge, the Isca model doesn't have a DOI yet.
About the DOI that whedon claims to be wrong, if I click on all of them they lead me to the correct articles. All of them contains semicolons and weird characters so I guess that whedon has a problem with that.
Just a comment regarding Isca: there is a paper about it published in Geoscientific Model Development that should be cited.
Huh ! Yes, we have completely overlooked this one, thank you.
Do we still need to do something for the paper to move to the REVIEW phase? We will address the comment of @danielskatz :
In the paper, in the state of the field section, please explain how your work is different/related
in the revised manuscript.
@jodemaey we still require a second reviewer before we can move ahead. As rabernat has not responded, do you have any other suggestions for people who may be suitable?
Ok, we suggest Sadie Bartholomew (sadielbartholomew) then.
Thanks!
:wave: @sadielbartholomew, would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html
Hi all--sorry for the slow response. I have been on vacation for most of August.
I am not able to review this submission right now. Some great alternatives might be @mfjansen, @francispoulin, @navidcy, @pittwolfe, and @mbueti, all of whom have worked on pyqg.
wave @sadielbartholomew, would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html
Hi, thanks for the request and yes I am happy to review this, assuming you are happy to wait one week or so for me to start reviewing since I am currently a JOSS reviewer for another library and will need to devote a little more time to that review before I should accept another.
@sadielbartholomew great, thanks! And yes, that's totally fine β we typically ask that reviews are completed within 6 weeks or so, so that should give you plenty of time to finish up with the other review first!
@whedon add @sadielbartholomew as reviewer
OK, @sadielbartholomew is now a reviewer
@whedon start review
OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/2597.
Submitting author: @jodemaey (Jonathan Demaeyer) Repository: https://github.com/Climdyn/qgs Version: v0.2.0 Editor: @harpolea Reviewers: @eviatarbach, @sadielbartholomew Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz
: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 @jodemaey. Currently, there isn't an JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
@jodemaey 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: