Closed editorialbot closed 2 years ago
Hello humans, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.
: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.
For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
@editorialbot commands
For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
@editorialbot generate pdf
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.48 s (1119.4 files/s, 148281.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML 265 13118 3543 42362
R 242 261 5922 3347
C++ 6 26 55 693
CSS 3 99 48 428
JavaScript 4 64 34 266
Rmd 8 61 405 223
Markdown 5 43 0 211
YAML 4 23 2 161
TeX 1 11 0 93
SVG 2 0 1 29
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 540 13706 10010 47813
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.10.006 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compag.2013.02.003 is OK
- 10.1080/10618600.1996.10474713 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1475-2743.1991.tb00881.x is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- 10.1016/S0198-97150100031-X is INVALID
- 10.1016/S0019-99586590241-X is INVALID
Wordcount for paper.md
is 949
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
ππΌ @alstat @corybrunson @kuesterc9 this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.
Both reviewers please first create your checklist by running this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:
@editorialbot generate my checklist
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 openjournals/joss-reviews#REVIEW_NUMBER
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 any of you require some more time. We can also use EditorialBot (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 if you have any questions/concerns.
@alstat please also correct the two invalid DOIs in your references (see editorialbot-comment above)
@alstat please also correct the two invalid DOIs in your references (see editorialbot-comment above)
Noted on this. Thanks.
@fabian-s FYI i checked roughly half the boxes on my checklist yesterday and today found them all unchecked. Moreover, i find myself now unable to check boxes. Do you have an idea of what might be wrong? I will try logging out and back in, etc.
Update: I restarted my browser and the checks are restored and editable. I'm sorry for the alarm, and i'll watch out for possible causes.
@fabian-s i have completed the first phase of my review.
@alstat i'll be glad to respond to feedback on the issues i raised and will check the remaining boxes to complete my review as they are addressed.
Thank you both!
thanks @corybrunson !
glad the checklist-problem seems to have solved itself! :)
@kuesterc9 , do you have any questions before you start your review? JOSS aims for short turn-around times, if I can help speed up the process let me know.
@alstat could you give us a brief update on your progress resolving the issues pointed out by the reviewers?
@alstat please adress the issues raised by the reviewers and let us know here in the thread your timeframe for doing so before the week-end
@editorialbot remind @alstat in 2 days
Reminder set for @alstat in 2 days
@editorialbot remind @fabian-s in 5 days
@fabian-s doesn't seem to be a reviewer or author for this submission.
@fabian-s, sorry, I was a bit loaded, but will work on it today on the remaining issues.
:wave: @alstat, please update us on how things are progressing here (this is an automated reminder).
sorry, I was a bit loaded, but will work on it today on the remaining issues.
yes, please do so now, this has been inactive for a rather long time.
@fabian-s my concerns have been addressed, pending re-generation of the PDF. Thank you, @alstat, for the detailed responses!
Hi @fabian-s,
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification): OK DOIs - 10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.10.006 is OK - 10.1016/j.compag.2013.02.003 is OK - 10.1080/10618600.1996.10474713 is OK - 10.1111/j.1475-2743.1991.tb00881.x is OK MISSING DOIs - None INVALID DOIs - 10.1016/S0198-97150100031-X is INVALID - 10.1016/S0019-99586590241-X is INVALID
The invalid DOIs here are due to missing parentheses. So,
10.1016/S0198-97150100031-X # invalid
10.1016/S0198-9715(01)00031-X # correct
and,
10.1016/S0019-99586590241-X # invalid
10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X # correct
The correct DOIs are the ones in the paper, not sure why the parentheses are omitted when checkin. For reference, here are the complete URLs for the two DOIs above:
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0198-9715(01)00031-X
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
Not sure how to resolve this.
π @xuanxu - Is this something you can fix?
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.10.006 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compag.2013.02.003 is OK
- 10.1080/10618600.1996.10474713 is OK
- 10.1016/S0198-9715(01)00031-X is OK
- 10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X is OK
- 10.1111/j.1475-2743.1991.tb00881.x is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
Fixed!
thanks!
Thank you! Let me know on the next steps or any pending tasks I have to address.
@kuesterc9 you left the checkmarks for "automated tests" and "community guidelines" out -- do you have remaining points of criticism or have your concerns been addressed in the meantime?
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@kuesterc9 you left the checkmarks for "automated tests" and "community guidelines" out -- do you have remaining points of criticism or have your concerns been addressed in the meantime?
I think everything is now fine! ;-)
@alstat
please take a look at the issue I opened re. best practices for scientific software in R and take a look at the PR suggesting some minor edits to the paper.
Addressing https://github.com/alstat/ALUES/issues/24 is not necessary for JOSS publication. IMO would still be a good idea that would improve your package.
Thank you, @fabian-s. Already merged alstat/ALUES#25, and noted on the best practices.
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.10.006 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compag.2013.02.003 is OK
- 10.1080/10618600.1996.10474713 is OK
- 10.1016/S0198-9715(01)00031-X is OK
- 10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X is OK
- 10.1111/j.1475-2743.1991.tb00881.x is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@alstat Seems like we're good to go here :rocket:
At this point could you:
I can then move forward with reommending acceptance of the submission.
Hi @fabian-s, below is the link of the archived software in Zenodo, following the correct metadata:
https://zenodo.org/record/6529873#.YniNtRNBx-o
Here is the DOI of the archived version: 10.5281/zenodo.6529873
Great -- please also make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here Link to Github Docs so I can recommend acceptance of your paper.
Hi @fabian-s, I have it here: https://github.com/alstat/ALUES/releases/tag/v0.2.1
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.6529873 as archive
Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.6529873
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.10.006 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compag.2013.02.003 is OK
- 10.1080/10618600.1996.10474713 is OK
- 10.1016/S0198-9715(01)00031-X is OK
- 10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X is OK
- 10.1111/j.1475-2743.1991.tb00881.x is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@alstat<!--end-author-handle-- (Al-Ahmadgaid Asaad) Repository: https://github.com/alstat/ALUES Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v0.2.1 Editor: !--editor-->@fabian-s<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @corybrunson, @kuesterc9 Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.6529873
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
@corybrunson & @kuesterc9, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review. First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @fabian-s 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¨
Checklists
π Checklist for @corybrunson
π Checklist for @kuesterc9