Closed whedon closed 3 years ago
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @GregoryAshton, @katiebreivik it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper :tada:.
: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.
:star: Important :star:
If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews πΏ
To fix this do the following two things:
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
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1088/1361-6404/aaf81e is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.024038 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty908 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.122006 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.52.605 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.67.024016 is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/24/19/S31 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.084006 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.65.044001 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.65.124012 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevX.4.031006 is OK
- 10.1017/pasa.2017.51 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty1353 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01987 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc is OK
- 10.1088/1538-3873/aaef0b is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@dfm I'm unable to tick the boxes above (I am logged in, and I accepted the request a few days back - now the link gives a "Sorry, we couldn't find that repository invitation")
@GregoryAshton: Sorry about that - I'll send you a new invitation!
@whedon re-invite @GregoryAshton as reviewer
OK, the reviewer has been re-invited.
@gregoryashton please accept the invite by clicking this link: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations
:wave: @GregoryAshton, please update us on how your review is going.
:wave: @katiebreivik, please update us on how your review is going.
@GregoryAshton, @katiebreivik: Note that the messages from @whedon are automated, and I am following along with issues that you have already opened. No need for more details here. Let me know if you have any questions as the reviews proceed!
@whedon generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
I have responded to every issue that has been raised in the repository; is there anything else that is keeping the review from proceeding?
Hi @wvanzeist -- apologies on my part!! I am reading through the new proof this evening since I've been swamped for the past week.
I am happy to recommend for publishing -- all boxes checked!
@GregoryAshton Have you seen my response to the issue you raised in the Riroriro directory?
All boxes checked. Happy to recommend for publication.
Awesome - thanks @GregoryAshton and @katiebreivik for your reviews!
@wvanzeist: Now that the reviewers have signed off I'm going to do a pass of editing and then I'll have a few more steps for you in the next couple of days.
@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
- 10.1088/1361-6404/aaf81e is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.024038 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty908 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.122006 is OK
- 10.1017/pasa.2017.51 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty1353 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01987 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 is OK
- 10.7935/GT1W-FZ16 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.044055 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
@wvanzeist: I've opened a tiny pull request with some minor edits to the paper. Can you take a look at that and once you've merged, please take the following steps:
@whedon generate pdf
on this thread and read through the manuscript to make sure that you're happy with it (it's hard to make changes later!), especially author names and affiliations.Let me know if you have questions or run into any issues!
@whedon generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@dfm Would you know of a way to prevent the PDF from breaking the word "Riroriro" weirdly without a line-break hyphen at line 62?
In the meantime, I have set the version number to 1.0.0 and created a Zenodo archive, which is at the following DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4588070
Also, because of your suggestion to tweak the title slightly I had a discussion about it with my co-authors and adjusted it a bit more to be more representative and elegant, replacing "calculating signal-to-noise ratios" with "evaluating their detectability".
@whedon generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
In order to deal with the weird line break at line 62, I decided to just rearrange the sentence so that the word with the special formatting wasn't at the end of the line. It's fixed now.
@whedon generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Sounds good - sorry that I didn't have a suggestion sooner!
@wvanzeist: I've opened a tiny pull request with some minor edits to the paper. Can you take a look at that and once you've merged, please take the following steps:
- Comment
@whedon generate pdf
on this thread and read through the manuscript to make sure that you're happy with it (it's hard to make changes later!), especially author names and affiliations.- Increment the version number of the software and report that version number back here.
- Create an archived release of that version of the software (using Zenodo or something similar). Please make sure that the metadata (title and author list) exactly match the paper. Then report the DOI of the release back to this thread.
Let me know if you have questions or run into any issues!
I have completed each of these steps, is there anything else I need to do now?
@wvanzeist: whoops! I hadn't seen the DOI and version number in the previous comment - sorry! I think you're all set. I'll pass this off to the Editors in Chief who might have some final edits before final processing.
@GregoryAshton, @katiebreivik: thanks again for your reviews!!
@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.4588070 as archive
OK. 10.5281/zenodo.4588070 is the archive.
@whedon set v1.0.0 as version
OK. v1.0.0 is the version.
@whedon accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1088/1361-6404/aaf81e is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.024038 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty908 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.122006 is OK
- 10.1017/pasa.2017.51 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty1353 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01987 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 is OK
- 10.7935/GT1W-FZ16 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.044055 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/2139
If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/2139, 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...
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...
Congratulations @wvanzeist on your article's publication in JOSS!
Many thanks to @GregoryAshton and @katiebreivik for reviewing this, and @dfm 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.02968/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02968)
HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02968">
<img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02968/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>
reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02968/status.svg
:target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02968
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:
Great thanks for all the reviewers and editors!
@kyleniemeyer When I go to the theoj.org page for this article, the place where the PDF is supposed to be appears empty, and clicking "download paper" gives "file not found". Might there be a bug of some sort, or is it just taking some time for the website to update?
@wvanzeist yeah, sometimes I have found that caches / different DNS resolvers (or something) take a bit for the PDF to propagate and become available. It loads fine for me, so I would just give it some time on your end.
Submitting author: @wvanzeist (Wouter van Zeist) Repository: https://github.com/wvanzeist/riroriro Version: v1.0.0 Editor: @dfm Reviewer: @GregoryAshton, @katiebreivik Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.4588070
: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
@GregoryAshton & @katiebreivik, 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 @dfm 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 @GregoryAshton
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
Review checklist for @katiebreivik
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper