Closed whedon closed 2 years ago
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @chad-iris, @cja12, @jkmacc-LANL 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
Wordcount for paper.md
is 506
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1007/s12517-008-0001-5 is OK
- doi:10.1029/2011GL047947 is OK
- 10.1785/0220160028 is OK
- 10.2172/110248 is OK
- 10.1785/0120110042 is OK
- 10.1002/jgrb.50146 is OK
- 10.1785/0120170145 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1111/j.1365-246x.2009.04429.x may be a valid DOI for title: Seismic tomography of the southern California crust based on spectral-element and adjoint methods
INVALID DOIs
- None
Software report (experimental):
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.20 s (1131.7 files/s, 221181.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML 115 417 1044 13126
C 17 1070 4695 9423
Bourne Shell 8 724 1057 5513
JavaScript 73 100 187 2043
CSS 4 338 80 1664
C/C++ Header 7 163 1019 1191
m4 2 93 21 837
XML 1 5 8 182
TeX 1 11 0 125
Markdown 2 40 0 93
make 1 18 2 49
YAML 1 1 0 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 232 2980 8113 34249
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistical information for the repository '82b054a9e9c6aa7be10589c6' was
gathered on 2021/08/16.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:
Author Commits Insertions Deletions % of changes
Brian Savage 75 23852 3876 100.00
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
Brian Savage 19976 83.7 6.5 33.46
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
👋 @chad-iris and @cja12 and @jkmacc-LANL - Thanks for agreeing to review this submission. This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.
Both reviewers have checklists at the top of this thread 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.
Please read the first couple of comments in this issue carefully, so that you can accept the invitation from JOSS and be able to check items, and so that you don't get overwhelmed with notifications from other activities in JOSS.
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, reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#3619
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 reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if either of you require some more time. We can also use Whedon (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.
Please feel free to ping me (@danielskatz) if you have any questions/concerns.
@whedon check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1007/s12517-008-0001-5 is OK
- doi:10.1029/2011GL047947 is OK
- 10.1785/0220160028 is OK
- 10.2172/110248 is OK
- 10.1785/0120110042 is OK
- 10.1002/jgrb.50146 is OK
- 10.1785/0120170145 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1111/j.1365-246x.2009.04429.x may be a valid DOI for title: Seismic tomography of the southern California crust based on spectral-element and adjoint methods
INVALID DOIs
- None
👋 @savage13 - can you work on the possibly missing DOI that whedon suggests, but note that this may be incorrect. Please feel free to make changes to your .bib file, then use the command @whedon check references
to check again, and the command @whedon generate pdf
when the references are right to make a new PDF. Whedon commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.
@cja12 - I see you are trying to use the automated GitHub feature on the checklist - these issues you open are intentionally being closed by whedon. Please note the instructions at the top of your checklist:
✨ 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. ✨
and when you open an issue there, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#3619
so that a link is created to this review issue and we can see if it is open or closed.
@cja12 - Did you see the instructions in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/3619#issuecomment-899602160? Right now, you are getting notifications for all JOSS reviews, and those instructions tell you how to turn this off, so you will only get notifications for this review. I hope that might solve your problem and let you keep working on this review, particularly since you already have started.
@whedon check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1007/s12517-008-0001-5 is OK
- doi:10.1029/2011GL047947 is OK
- 10.1785/0220160028 is OK
- 10.2172/110248 is OK
- 10.1785/0120110042 is OK
- 10.1002/jgrb.50146 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04429.x is OK
- 10.1785/0120170145 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:
:wave: @chad-iris, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
:wave: @cja12, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
:wave: @jkmacc-LANL, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
👋 @chad-iris, @cja12, @jkmacc-LANL - we're now about 3 weeks into the process. How is it going? I see some progress by @cja12, but no checked items from @chad-iris or @jkmacc-LANL
My apologies for the delay; my invitation has expired. Can it please be resent?
@whedon re-invite @jkmacc-LANL as reviewer
OK, the reviewer has been re-invited.
@jkmacc-lanl please accept the invite by clicking this link: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations
Documentation Issue submitted: https://github.com/savage13/sacio/issues/1
👋 @chad-iris, @cja12, @jkmacc-LANL - we're now about 6 weeks into the process. How is it going? I see some progress by @cja12 and @jkmacc-LANL, but no checked items from @chad-iris.
Are there things that you need from the author or me?
Hi,
I informed you weeks ago that I was through using your system. I do not have any plans to continue this process. I found the interface too confusing and annoying - especially when it automated sending me dozens of irrelevant messages to me. For example, other than to me, I have no idea where this response is going. Ridiculous.
On Sep 29, 2021, at 1:55 PM, Daniel S. Katz @.***> wrote:
👋 @chad-iris, @cja12, @jkmacc-LANL - we're now about 6 weeks into the process. How is it going? I see some progress by @cja12 and @jkmacc-LANL, but no checked items from @chad-iris.
Are there things that you need from the author or me?
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS or Android.
================================i==================================== Charles J. Ammon, Department of Geosciences Penn State University / 440 Deike Bldg / University Park, PA 16802 VOICE: (814) 865 2310 / FAXES: (814) 863 7823 or (814) 863 8724 http://eqseis.geosc.psu.edu/~cammon/ http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/c/j/cja12/
Sorry. I'll remove you as a reviewer, and won't mention you again.
@whedon remove @cja12 as reviewer
OK, @cja12 is no longer a reviewer
👋 @jkmacc-LANL - how is this going at this point?
👋 @chad-iris - how is this going at this point?
👋 @jkmacc-LANL - how is this going at this point?
👋 @chad-iris - how is this going at this point?
I'm also emailing both reviewers now
@danielskatz My invitation expired as well, please re-send? I should be able to work on this right away.
@whedon re-invite @chad-iris As reviewer
OK, the reviewer has been re-invited.
@chad-iris please accept the invite by clicking this link: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations
Paper suggestions submitted: https://github.com/savage13/sacio/issues/2
Example code fix up: https://github.com/savage13/sacio/issues/3
Context for code in README/documentation: https://github.com/savage13/sacio/issues/4
Suggestion for paper Summary: https://github.com/savage13/sacio/issues/5
@danielskatz My review is complete. When the 4 issues I filed are addressed (https://github.com/savage13/sacio/issues) I recommend accepting the submission.
Thanks @chad-iris!
👋 @savage13 - any update on your progress on the issues opened by @chad-iris?
👋 @jkmacc-LANL - How is your review going? Are there any things blocking your progress?
I've had no response from @jkmacc-LANL here or via email in a month. I think I need to remove them and find another reviewer.
@savage13 & @kbarnhart (or @chad-iris) - do you have any suggestions?
👋 @mbegnaud - we seem to have lost the second reviewer in this review. Would you perhaps be able to step in and review it?
Yes, I can review. When do you need it?
Ideally, as quickly as you can conveniently do it :) How long would you want/need?
I'm also going to update the checklists at the top to give you one, and change the reviewers in the system to remove @jkmacc-LANL and add you.
Thanks!!
@whedon remove @jkmacc-LANL as reviewer
OK, @jkmacc-LANL is no longer a reviewer
Submitting author: @savage13 (Brian Savage) Repository: https://github.com/savage13/sacio Version: v1.0.3 Editor: @danielskatz Reviewers: @chad-iris, @mbegnaud Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5722418
: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
@chad-iris & @mbegnaud, 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 @danielskatz 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 @chad-iris
✨ 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 @mbegnaud
✨ 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 @jkmacc-LANL
✨ 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