Closed whedon closed 3 years ago
Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch JOSS-paper. Reticulating splines etc...
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@whedon generate pdf from branch JOSS-paper
Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch JOSS-paper. Reticulating splines etc...
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Thanks!
@whedon accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
PDF failed to compile for issue #3053 with the following error:
Can't find any papers to compile :-(
Thanks @ranocha and @eviatarbach for the review!
@whedon accept from branch JOSS-paper
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02018 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-9-2793-2016 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02597 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4686348 is OK
- 10.5670/oceanog.2016.66 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023068 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3551326 is OK
- 10.1017/jfm.2021.247 is OK
- 10.5802/smai-jcm.63 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/2247
If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/2247, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true
e.g.
@whedon accept deposit=true from branch JOSS-paper
@pdebuyl I just went through the proofs.
Looks good -- I just rephrased a the sentence to reflect that Pearson et al. 2021 is part of what "has been done" and not part of what's "Currently, GeophysicalFlows.jl
is used for..." and pushed in JOSS-paper
branch. (see https://github.com/FourierFlows/GeophysicalFlows.jl/pull/233/commits/38af08b1a4212563ccebb6909c8133f3bb01a9f0).
Can you update the pdf to reflect the latest version?
Hi @navidcy I'll let the handling associate editor-in-chief take the update into account. They will take the review process further in this review issue.
@whedon accept from branch JOSS-paper
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02018 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-9-2793-2016 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02597 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4686348 is OK
- 10.5670/oceanog.2016.66 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023068 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3551326 is OK
- 10.1017/jfm.2021.247 is OK
- 10.5802/smai-jcm.63 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/2248
If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/2248, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true
e.g.
@whedon accept deposit=true from branch JOSS-paper
thanks @arfon, looks good!
@whedon accept deposit=true from branch JOSS-paper
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...
@ranocha, @eviatarbach - many thanks for your reviews here and to @pdebuyl for editing this submission. JOSS relies upon the volunteer efforts of people like you, and we couldn't do this without you ✨
@navidcy - your paper is now accepted into JOSS :zap::rocket::boom:
: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.03053/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03053)
HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03053">
<img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03053/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>
reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03053/status.svg
:target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03053
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: @navidcy (Navid C. Constantinou) Repository: https://github.com/FourierFlows/GeophysicalFlows.jl Version: v0.12.1 Editor: @pdebuyl Reviewer: @ranocha, @eviatarbach Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.4695260
: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
@ranocha & @eviatarbach, 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 @pdebuyl 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 @ranocha
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
Review checklist for @eviatarbach
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper