Closed whedon closed 2 years ago
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @emptymalei, @cpinte 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 709
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201629098 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01632 is OK
- 10.1086/670067 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-019-1642-0 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/abf92e is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4599319 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201731377 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
Software report (experimental):
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.07 s (202.0 files/s, 43357.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 6 318 822 1143
TeX 1 11 0 177
Markdown 3 22 0 65
Jupyter Notebook 1 0 485 55
reStructuredText 2 19 15 33
DOS Batch 1 8 1 26
make 1 4 6 9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 15 382 1329 1508
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistical information for the repository '19f2eaae75f8267d394caeb7' was
gathered on 2021/10/14.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:
Author Commits Insertions Deletions % of changes
Jane Huang 1 4 2 0.05
Richard Teague 54 6994 4983 97.65
richteague 3 276 6 2.30
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
Richard Teague 2283 32.6 1.5 9.77
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@richteague, @emptymalei , @cpinte – This is the review thread for the paper. Please don't hesitate to message me here if you have questions.
Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above to get started. If you get lost, you can also see the reviewer guidelines.
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. If you are concerned about a requirement, please discuss it here on this thread 🧵 . Feel free to post about questions/concerns as they come up as you go through your review.
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 #3827 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening).
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. When you're finished with your checklist, leave a comment and @ me to let everyone know your review is complete.
Hi @emptymalei and @cpinte, just wanted to add a gentle prompt here as we're now at the two week mark. Please let me know if you are struggling with any aspect of the review!
:wave: @emptymalei, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
:wave: @cpinte, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
Hi @richteague, I have tried disksurf, it appears to work as expected. Very nice package !
The paper describes clearly the aims and functions. Maybe it is worth mentioning my own implementation https://github.com/cpinte/CO_layers (it is not as polished nor documented as disksurf, but it basically does the same thing).
I have run the tutorial, it is also clear and I can reproduce the results.
@christinahedges : I don't seem to be able to edit the checklist, it says the invitation expired
@whedon re-invite @cpinte as reviewer
OK, the reviewer has been re-invited.
@cpinte please accept the invite by clicking this link: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations
@cpinte ☝️
Thanks !
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Hmm, I found a strange thing about the markdown to pdf generator.
The order of '
and ,
is different from the original markdown file:
~Is this some special use case that I am not aware of?~
Apologies for missing that code, @cpinte! Do you have a Zenodo reference that I could use to reference it, or would a link to the GitHub repository be OK?
@kthyng - Do you have a preference from an editorial point of view?
It is odd that it's being generated differently than specified, though in this case, correct grammar would be
'scattering surface,' the emission surface equivalent for small, submicron grains, was described
both the first comma inside the quote, and the second comma added.
I didn't know that would happen in the pdf compilation! My understanding for the order of quotes vs. commas in a sentence is geographically dependent with different accepted rules in the U.S. vs the U.K. for example.
@richteague thanks, a link to github would be great.
@cpinte and @emptymalei it seems like both of your review checklists are complete. Thank you for your speedy work! If you have any further comments for the authors please do post them, otherwise let me know on the thread if you're happy with the submission and would like to complete your review and recommend acceptance.
Hi @christinahedges , from my side, I'm happy with the submission and would like to recommend accepting the current manuscript.
Hi @christinahedges, I am also happy to recommend the paper for publication.
: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
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201629098 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01632 is OK
- 10.1086/670067 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-019-1642-0 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/abf92e is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1434 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/ac143b is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/ac143d is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4599319 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201731377 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
Thank you very much reviewers! @richteague your paper submission looks good to me. If you are happy and would like to make no further changes based on the review, please make a tagged release 🏷️ of the code and archive it, and then please report the version number and archive DOI here in this thread. Please make sure this archived version has all the correct meta data (author names, title etc)!
I can then recommend to our EIC that we accept this submission.
Thank you again to @emptymalei and @cpinte for your hard work and thorough review!
Thanks @christinahedges! I've made a version of the code and archived version here: 10.5281/zenodo.5670586.
Thanks also to @cpinte and @emptymalei for reviewing this submission!
Hi @richteague, can you edit the metadata of the Zenodo archive so that the title and author list match the JOSS paper?
Hi @kyleniemeyer, I should have changed that now.
@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.5670586 as archive
OK. 10.5281/zenodo.5670586 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
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201629098 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01632 is OK
- 10.1086/670067 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-019-1642-0 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/abf92e is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1434 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/ac143b is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/ac143d is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4599319 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201731377 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/2747
If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/2747, 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...
🐦🐦🐦 👉 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...
Congratulations @richteague on your article's publication in JOSS!
Many thanks to @emptymalei and @cpinte for reviewing this, and @christinahedges for editing.
: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.03827/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03827)
HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03827">
<img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03827/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>
reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03827/status.svg
:target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03827
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: @richteague (Richard Teague) Repository: https://github.com/richteague/disksurf Version: v0.1.7 Editor: @christinahedges Reviewer: @emptymalei, @cpinte Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5670586
: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
@emptymalei & @cpinte, 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 @christinahedges 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 @emptymalei
✨ 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 @cpinte
✨ 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