Closed editorialbot closed 2 years ago
Hello humans, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.
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=0.06 s (1009.3 files/s, 69095.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 23 431 402 1265
Markdown 11 220 0 523
reStructuredText 18 208 278 340
TeX 2 15 0 219
SVG 1 0 1 65
YAML 2 7 0 60
JSON 1 0 0 47
TOML 1 6 0 34
DOS Batch 1 8 1 26
make 1 4 7 9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 61 899 689 2588
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1007/978-3-030-03493-1_9 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-68154-8_19 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2010.15524 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00613 is OK
- 10.1109/69.846291 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ins.2020.02.073 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-62362-3_10 is OK
- 10.1007/s12652-019-01540-7 is OK
- 10.1007/978-981-33-4370-2_1 is OK
- 10.1007/s42979-021-00725-2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.asoc.2007.05.003 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
Wordcount for paper.md
is 577
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
👋🏼 @zStupan @diegomcarvalho, @timClicks this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.
As a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering
@editorialbot generate my checklist
as the top of a new comment in this thread.
These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains 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 (@fabian-s) if you have any questions/concerns.
@timClicks how much more time do you think you'll need for your review?
@zStupan to speed up this process, you could begin to adress some of the issues identified by @diegomcarvalho while we wait for @timClicks to review the paper.
If you have questions or comments about specific points of the review or what would be required to adress them, please create separate GH issues for them in your repository and link to them here so we can have focussed discussions about them there and not in one sprawling thread.
@fabian-s I believe there are no issues to address. Everything on the checklist is present in the repository.
:wave: @fabian-s – it looks like the reviews might have stalled here?
@arfon yes, sorry, seems so. I lost track of this over the summer.
@zStupan very sorry for the delay. I tend to agree that the open points left in @diegomcarvalho checklist all seem to be present in the repo.
@diegomcarvalho please confirm that the items missing in your checklist are satisfied in the repo or open issues/provide some additional feedback on the specific points that you feel need additional work by the submitting authors
@timClicks are you still willing to do a review for JOSS for this work?
Hi @fabian-s, all items are satisfied by the collection provided in the repository.
Cheers, d.c
@timClicks are you still willing to do this review for JOSS?
Yes I am! Sorry for the lack of contact. Please give me 24h.
Yes I am! Sorry for the lack of contact. Please give me 24h.
@timClicks seems like 24h might have been too ambitious ... :smirk: Could you let us know what a realistic time frame for getting this done is, please?
@timClicks please respond
@editorialbot add @fabian-s as reviewer
@fabian-s added to the reviewers list!
@editorialbot commands
Hello @fabian-s, here are the things you can ask me to do:
# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands
# Add to this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot add @username as reviewer
# Remove from this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot remove @username from reviewers
# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors
# Assign a user as the editor of this submission
@editorialbot assign @username as editor
# Remove the editor assigned to this submission
@editorialbot remove editor
# Remind an author or reviewer to return to a review after a
# certain period of time (supported units days and weeks)
@editorialbot remind @reviewer in 2 weeks
# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references
# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository
# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist
# Set a value for version
@editorialbot set v1.0.0 as version
# Set a value for archive
@editorialbot set 10.21105/zenodo.12345 as archive
# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch
# Set a value for repository
@editorialbot set https://github.com/organization/repo as repository
# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf
# Recommends the submission for acceptance
@editorialbot recommend-accept
# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint
# Flag submission with questionable scope
@editorialbot query scope
# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers
# Open the review issue
@editorialbot start review
@editorialbot remove @timClicks from reviewers
I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:
@editorialbot commands
Sorry once more for being unable to complete this task in a timely manner 😞 .
hi @zStupan, i'm filling in as the 2nd reviewer here, sorry again for the delays.
Almost everything seems fine, but please see firefly-cpp/NiaARM#66 for one small request to add a more explicit comparison to other packages to your statement of need section.
I also had to run import nltk; nltk.download('stopwords'); nltk.download('punkt')
to get the textmining example to run, but I admittedly did not use poetry install
as your docs recommend so maybe that was my own fault....
@editorialbot generate pdf
@editorialbot check references
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1007/978-3-030-03493-1_9 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-68154-8_19 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2010.15524 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00613 is OK
- 10.1109/69.846291 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ins.2020.02.073 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-62362-3_10 is OK
- 10.1007/s12652-019-01540-7 is OK
- 10.1007/978-981-33-4370-2_1 is OK
- 10.1007/s42979-021-00725-2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.asoc.2007.05.003 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2010.10884 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1007/s00500-008-0323-y may be a valid DOI for title: KEEL: a software tool to assess evolutionary algorithms for data mining problems
INVALID DOIs
- None
@zStupan seems like we're finally almost there -- please add the missing DOI (see above) and then:
I can then move forward with recommending acceptance of the submission.
@fabian-s the version tag is 0.2.1
and the DOI is 10.5281/zenodo.7123879
@editorialbot check references
@editorialbot generate pdf
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1007/978-3-030-03493-1_9 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-68154-8_19 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2010.15524 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00613 is OK
- 10.1109/69.846291 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ins.2020.02.073 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-62362-3_10 is OK
- 10.1007/s12652-019-01540-7 is OK
- 10.1007/978-981-33-4370-2_1 is OK
- 10.1007/s42979-021-00725-2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.asoc.2007.05.003 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2010.10884 is OK
- 10.1007/s00500-008-0323-y is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7123879 as archive
Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7123879
@editorialbot set 0.2.1 as version
Done! version is now 0.2.1
@editorialbot recommend-accept
(timClicks is still listed as a reviewer of this paper and could be removed, not sure if it matters)
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1007/978-3-030-03493-1_9 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-68154-8_19 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2010.15524 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00613 is OK
- 10.1109/69.846291 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ins.2020.02.073 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-62362-3_10 is OK
- 10.1007/s12652-019-01540-7 is OK
- 10.1007/978-981-33-4370-2_1 is OK
- 10.1007/s42979-021-00725-2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.asoc.2007.05.003 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2010.10884 is OK
- 10.1007/s00500-008-0323-y 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::page_facing_up: Download article
If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/3562, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept
small issue:
(timClicks is still listed as a reviewer of this paper and could be removed, not sure if it matters)
Acknowledging that @fabian-s provided the second review here.
@zStupan – could you please merge this PR which removes the AAS-related stuff which doesn't apply here.
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1007/978-3-030-03493-1_9 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-68154-8_19 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2010.15524 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00613 is OK
- 10.1109/69.846291 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ins.2020.02.073 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-62362-3_10 is OK
- 10.1007/s12652-019-01540-7 is OK
- 10.1007/978-981-33-4370-2_1 is OK
- 10.1007/s42979-021-00725-2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.asoc.2007.05.003 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2010.10884 is OK
- 10.1007/s00500-008-0323-y 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::page_facing_up: Download article
If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/3568, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@zStupan<!--end-author-handle-- (Žiga Stupan) Repository: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/NiaARM Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: 0.2.1 Editor: !--editor-->@fabian-s<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @diegomcarvalho, @fabian-s Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7123879
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
@diegomcarvalho & @timClicks, 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.
✨ 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 ✨
Checklists
📝 Checklist for @diegomcarvalho
📝 Checklist for @timClicks
📝 Checklist for @fabian-s