Closed whedon closed 3 years ago
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @lisazeyen , @willu47 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 😿
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
@lisazeyen , @willu47 – This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.
Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above.
Both reviewers have checklists at the top of this thread (in that first comment) with the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.
The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention #3601 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.
We aim for the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks but please make a start well ahead of this as JOSS reviews are by their nature iterative and any early feedback you may be able to provide to the author will be very helpful in meeting this schedule.
@whedon check repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 1163
Software report (experimental):
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.07 s (766.4 files/s, 157815.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAML 10 157 24 5908
Python 23 1004 902 1495
SVG 4 4 4 298
CSS 2 54 11 244
reStructuredText 9 307 494 240
TeX 1 11 0 133
Markdown 2 29 0 78
XML 3 0 0 50
DOS Batch 1 8 1 26
Jupyter Notebook 1 0 221 15
make 1 4 7 9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 57 1578 1664 8496
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistical information for the repository '35259e4da8023f93dbebfb4c' was
gathered on 2021/08/11.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:
Author Commits Insertions Deletions % of changes
Chris Vernon 3 490 14 0.63
Nino Zuljevic 1 3276 2 4.10
Vernon 7 437 62 0.62
Vernon, Chris R 9 673 199 1.09
crvernon 150 36822 38020 93.56
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
Vernon 2 0.5 40.5 0.00
crvernon 3399 9.2 4.4 15.77
@whedon check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1038/s41560-020-00686-5 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rser.2018.09.022 is OK
- 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.025 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-021-21785-1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.019 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.227 is OK
- 10.1007/s10584-012-0618-y is OK
- 10.1016/j.esr.2019.100411 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-018-08275-7 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114267 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:
@fraukewiese @lisazeyen @willu47 The following is a preemptive explanation of author contributions to this paper:
@willu47 I believe I have incorporated all of your feedback (see PR chain above). I really appreciate you taking time to make suggestions and edits that were very beneficial to this software! Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to address them.
👋 @lisazeyen Don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions. Thank you!
@willu47 I have just merged functionality to incorporate your recent suggestion to separate the data (~200 MB) from the package. The package data can now be installed via a simple call which is all detailed in the docs via:
import cerf
# install package data
cerf.install_package_data()
or from the terminal after installing cerf
via:
python -c 'import cerf; cerf.install_package_data()'
Thanks for the suggestion!
Please let me know if you have any more questions. 👍
Hi @crvernon - looks good. One more broader issue linked above. Let's discuss in the issue. It would be good to get your feedback on my suggestion/question
:wave: @willu47 , please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
:wave: @lisazeyen , please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
:wave: @willu47 and @lisazeyen - I have addressed all of your issues and comments. At this point we should be up-to-date. All changes have been incorporated on main
and the docs and PyPi versions updated accordingly. Thanks so much for the great feedback!
Just following up to see if you had any further questions @willu47 and @lisazeyen . Thanks for your feedback thus far!
:wave: @lisazeyen I have addressed both of your recent issues. Thanks for the additional feedback!
@lisazeyen @willu47 : I see you're nearly finished with your reviews - thanks a lot ! Please let me know when you are done and what your recommendation is.
:wave: Hello @willu47 and @lisazeyen do you have any further comments for this review? I would love to try to wrap this up before the end of our fiscal year if possible. Thanks so much for your constructive and helpful review!
@crvernon @fraukewiese : I am finished with my review. @crvernon has addressed all my comments.
Thank you very much @lisazeyen for your thorough review!
Apologies for the delay in following up, I have been on leave. @crvernon I am afraid I'm not fully happy with the data install yet as outlined in issue IMMM-SFA/cerf#71. Otherwise, I'm happy that my comments have been addressed.
@willu47 I added in the option to download the illustrative test data to a user-defined location as described in https://github.com/IMMM-SFA/cerf/pull/72
🤝 Thanks for all of your input and the thoughtful review! I now have addressed all of your inquiries.
:wave: @fraukewiese at this point I believe I have addressed all reviewer comments. Thanks!
@willu47 Are you satisfied with the way crvernon has addressed your comment on the data install?
@willu47 Are you satisfied with the way crvernon has addressed your comment on the data install?
Yes, @crvernon has addressed all my requests.
@willu47 Thank you for that information. If you are satisfied with everything, could you then check the last checkbox in your review list? Thanks a lot for your thorough review that has improved the submission a lot.
@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
- 10.1038/s41560-020-00686-5 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rser.2018.09.022 is OK
- 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.025 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-021-21785-1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.019 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.227 is OK
- 10.1007/s10584-012-0618-y is OK
- 10.1016/j.esr.2019.100411 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-018-08275-7 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114267 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-12-677-2019 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
Both reviewers have stated that @crvernon has addressed all of their comments. We thus proceed to the final steps.
@crvernon At this point could you:
I can then move forward with accepting the submission.
@fraukewiese My release version is v2.0.9
and my DOI is 10.5281/zenodo.5527334
Thanks!
@whedon set <v2.0.9> as version
OK. <v2.0.9> is the version.
@whedon set v2.0.9 as version
OK. v2.0.9 is the version.
@crvernon The title in the archive does not exactly match the paper title: alternative instead of alternate.
@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.5527334 as archive
OK. 10.5281/zenodo.5527334 is the archive.
@whedon recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1038/s41560-020-00686-5 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rser.2018.09.022 is OK
- 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.025 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-021-21785-1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.019 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.227 is OK
- 10.1007/s10584-012-0618-y is OK
- 10.1016/j.esr.2019.100411 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-018-08275-7 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114267 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-12-677-2019 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/2609
If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/2609, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true
e.g.
@whedon accept deposit=true
@crvernon The title in the archive does not exactly match the paper title: alternative instead of alternate.
@fraukewiese yes, I changed the name in the paper as well. The original should have used "alternative" instead. The current is correct. Thank you!
@whedon generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Submitting author: @crvernon (Chris Vernon) Repository: https://github.com/IMMM-SFA/cerf Version: v2.0.9 Editor: @fraukewiese Reviewer: @lisazeyen , @willu47 Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5527334
: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
@lisazeyen & @willu47 , 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 @fraukewiese 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 @lisazeyen
✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
Review checklist for @willu47
✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper