Closed whedon closed 3 years ago
@whedon generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
π @rcarragh - I've made a PR here with a couple of small fixes to the bibliography, could you please check and merge?
The next steps will then be:
@csoneson I've checked and merged the changes, thanks.
@whedon generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@whedon check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x is OK
- 10.1198/jasa.2010.tm09329 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.5310 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jspi.2007.06.006 is OK
- doi:10.1201/9781420011302.fmatt is OK
- 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2004.00186.x is OK
- 10.1080/10543406.2010.520181 is OK
- 10.1080/19466315.2017.1409134 is OK
- 10.1007/978-981-10-7826-2_11 is OK
- 10.1007/978-981-10-7826-2_11 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3235282 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.8304 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.8495 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.8563 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
@whedon generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@csoneson - I've done the following:
Tagged release of software in github: 1.00 I have archived the corresponding software on Zenodo The title and author on Zenodo match the paper; Co-author does not have an ORCID. Zenodo archive DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4304831
I hope this is correct, thanks.
Thanks @rcarragh - could you just remove the initial rcarragh/c212
from the Zenodo record title, so that it matches the paper title? The rest looks good.
@whedon set 1.00 as version
OK. 1.00 is the version.
Hi @csoneson, I've removed the initial rcarragh/c212 from the Zenodo record title Thanks
@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.4304831 as archive
OK. 10.5281/zenodo.4304831 is the archive.
@whedon accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Thanks @rcarragh - the associate editor-in-chief on rotation will take over from here and finalize the acceptance of your submission.
: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/1958
If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1958, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true
e.g.
@whedon accept deposit=true
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x is OK
- 10.1198/jasa.2010.tm09329 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.5310 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jspi.2007.06.006 is OK
- doi:10.1201/9781420011302.fmatt is OK
- 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2004.00186.x is OK
- 10.1080/10543406.2010.520181 is OK
- 10.1080/19466315.2017.1409134 is OK
- 10.1007/978-981-10-7826-2_11 is OK
- 10.1007/978-981-10-7826-2_11 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3235282 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.8304 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.8495 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.8563 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
I would like to says thanks to @csoneson for organising the review process, and thanks to the reviewers, @rrrlw and @MelvinSMunsaka, for their helpful and insightful comments. Doubly so given the current difficult working conditions many are facing.
@whedon accept deposit=true
I'm sorry @rcarragh, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editor-in-chiefs are allowed to do.
I checked the proof and crossref in openjournals/joss-papers#1958 and they look good from my point of view.
@whedon accept deposit=true
Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...
π¦π¦π¦ π Tweet for this paper π π¦π¦π¦
π¨π¨π¨ THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! π¨π¨π¨
Here's what you must now do:
Party like you just published a paper! πππ¦ππ»π€
Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...
Congrats @rcarragh on your article's publication in JOSS!
Many thanks to @rrrlw and @MelvinSMunsaka for reviewing this, and @csoneson for editing it.
: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.02706/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02706)
HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02706">
<img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02706/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>
reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02706/status.svg
:target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02706
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:
Submitting author: @rcarragh (Raymond Bernard Carragher) Repository: https://github.com/rcarragh/c212 Version: 1.00 Editor: @csoneson Reviewers: @rrrlw, @MelvinSMunsaka Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.4304831
: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
@rrrlw & @emilydolson, 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 @csoneson know.
β¨ 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 β¨
Review checklist for @rrrlw
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
Review checklist for @emilydolson
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
Review checklist for @MelvinSMunsaka
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper