[REVIEW]: rsudp: A Python package for real-time seismic monitoring with Raspberry Shake instruments

whedon commented 4 years ago

Submitting author: @iannesbitt (Ian Nesbitt) Repository: https://github.com/raspishake/rsudp Version: 1.1.0 Editor: @jedbrown Reviewers: @fwalter, @calum-chamberlain Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5771026

: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/11e2afeb2d45da49b4092e8311c8f8a4"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/11e2afeb2d45da49b4092e8311c8f8a4/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/11e2afeb2d45da49b4092e8311c8f8a4/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/11e2afeb2d45da49b4092e8311c8f8a4)

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

@calum-chamberlain and @fwalter, 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 @jedbrown know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Review checklist for @calum-chamberlain

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 (@iannesbitt) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

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?

Review checklist for @fwalter

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 (@iannesbitt) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

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?

iannesbitt commented 2 years ago

Hi @calum-chamberlain @jedbrown, just wanted to make sure this got to you.

calum-chamberlain commented 2 years ago

Hi all, apologies, but I'm currently in the field installing seismometers along the Alpine Fault and won't be able to get to this until December. Sorry!

iannesbitt commented 2 years ago

No problem, good luck in the field!

jedbrown commented 2 years ago

Thanks, @iannesbitt. I think this is a great improvement. I know this has been in review for a long time so I'd like to offer @calum-chamberlain a choice:

we'll wait for you to check in in December (default if you can't reply)
you can defer to me on this point and I'll check that your recommendations have been reasonably met, and if so, proceed with any final copy edits and acceptance. (Note that your checklist has unchecked "Statement of need" and "State of the field".)

calum-chamberlain commented 2 years ago

I'm happy to defer. I don't want to hold this up any longer!

CJ Chamberlain, out of office

From: Jed Brown @.> Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 7:39:59 AM To: openjournals/joss-reviews @.> Cc: Calum Chamberlain @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [openjournals/joss-reviews] [REVIEW]: rsudp: A Python package for real-time seismic monitoring with Raspberry Shake instruments (#2565)

Thanks, @iannesbitthttps://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fiannesbitt&data=04%7C01%7Ccalum.chamberlain%40vuw.ac.nz%7C1e6cc10dd89a4d23823708d99fc28298%7Ccfe63e236951427e8683bb84dcf1d20c%7C0%7C0%7C637716480101097467%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=QRrgGvw5SQi7JTO%2FQDxpcJYGGAd9YJmzwR3StBTDI3A%3D&reserved=0. I think this is a great improvement. I know this has been in review for a long time so I'd like to offer @calum-chamberlainhttps://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcalum-chamberlain&data=04%7C01%7Ccalum.chamberlain%40vuw.ac.nz%7C1e6cc10dd89a4d23823708d99fc28298%7Ccfe63e236951427e8683bb84dcf1d20c%7C0%7C0%7C637716480101097467%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=k7ZCWMPPwFd2ssVY7BqIsF2k0ClMyGg%2FzohPYFAuUBA%3D&reserved=0 a choice:

we'll wait for you to check in in December (default if you can't reply)
you can defer to me on this point and I'll check that your recommendations have been reasonably met, and if so, proceed with any final copy edits and acceptance. (Note that your checklist has unchecked "Statement of need" and "State of the field".)

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fopenjournals%2Fjoss-reviews%2Fissues%2F2565%23issuecomment-961316295&data=04%7C01%7Ccalum.chamberlain%40vuw.ac.nz%7C1e6cc10dd89a4d23823708d99fc28298%7Ccfe63e236951427e8683bb84dcf1d20c%7C0%7C0%7C637716480101107433%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=2QzlkpcIquJsegwES5RNyV%2BAsVPvoF1MovUKLKe0nrI%3D&reserved=0, or unsubscribehttps://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnotifications%2Funsubscribe-auth%2FACTIM45MWZJIB72VKATOUADUKLOQ7ANCNFSM4P7RIADA&data=04%7C01%7Ccalum.chamberlain%40vuw.ac.nz%7C1e6cc10dd89a4d23823708d99fc28298%7Ccfe63e236951427e8683bb84dcf1d20c%7C0%7C0%7C637716480101107433%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=xt%2B3pRxvNIpo9BKpoc1WNazqEBcY2z72qJg7f8PQRxs%3D&reserved=0.

calum-chamberlain commented 2 years ago

Hi all, sorry for the late reply - @jedbrown this looks great to me. @jedbrown I'm so sorry this took so long - the tests and the coverage look great, thank you for adding that, I really hope it does help in the long-run to have your code tested.

@jedbrown I approve this revision - I think that I have ticked everything that I need to, and I have reviewed the most recent version of the manuscript. Do you need anything else from me?

jedbrown commented 2 years ago

Thanks for your patience. I'm sorry to have volunteered to step in and then vanished -- busy times. Let's move this forward.

jedbrown commented 2 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

jedbrown commented 2 years ago

@whedon check references

whedon commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1785/0220180251 is OK
- 10.1785/0220190211 is OK
- 10.3389/feart.2020.00009 is OK
- 10.3389/feart.2020.00073 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1785/gssrl.81.3.530 is OK
- 10.4401/ag-4838 is OK
- 10.1088/1749-4699/8/1/014003 is OK
- 10.1126/science.abd2438 is OK
- 10.5066/P93A9MWK is OK
- 10.1785/0220200483 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon commented 2 years ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

jedbrown commented 2 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 2 years ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

jedbrown commented 2 years ago

Looks good. @iannesbitt Could you please tag a release (annotated tag preferred) and archive on Zenodo or similar? Please make sure the author list matches this submission and report the DOI back here.

iannesbitt commented 2 years ago

Hi @jedbrown, here is the tag and DOI record.

Release: 1.1.0 Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/record/5771026 doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5771026

jedbrown commented 2 years ago

@whedon set 1.1.0 as version

whedon commented 2 years ago

OK. 1.1.0 is the version.

jedbrown commented 2 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.5771026 as archive

whedon commented 2 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.5771026 is the archive.

jedbrown commented 2 years ago

@whedon recommend-accept

whedon commented 2 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1785/0220180251 is OK
- 10.1785/0220190211 is OK
- 10.3389/feart.2020.00009 is OK
- 10.3389/feart.2020.00073 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1785/gssrl.81.3.530 is OK
- 10.4401/ag-4838 is OK
- 10.1088/1749-4699/8/1/014003 is OK
- 10.1126/science.abd2438 is OK
- 10.5066/P93A9MWK is OK
- 10.1785/0220200483 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon commented 2 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/2809

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/2809, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon commented 2 years ago

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

whedon commented 2 years ago

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

whedon commented 2 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/2810
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02565
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

Congratulations to @iannesbitt (Ian Nesbitt) and co-authors!!

And thanks to @fwalter and @calum-chamberlain for reviewing, and @jedbrown for editing! We couldn't do this without you

whedon commented 2 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.02565/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02565)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02565">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02565/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02565/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02565

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

iannesbitt commented 2 years ago

Thank you all for your contributions, and sorry it took so long!

calum-chamberlain commented 2 years ago

Good job all, and apologies again for my part in the hold-ups. Thank you for your patience @iannesbitt

jedbrown commented 2 years ago

Indeed, thank you all for your important work and patience.

iannesbitt commented 2 years ago

@jedbrown a reader pointed out a small typographical error in the references: "Geolgical" should be "Geological". Wondering if it's too late to change now. I've made the necessary edit to the .bib file.

jedbrown commented 2 years ago

@danielskatz Is this something you can do or only Arfon? It's quite minor.

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

The best thing is to ping @openjournals/dev for things like this - it's not me :)

openjournals / joss-reviews