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 (822.7 files/s, 108344.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia 14 638 311 3556
Markdown 9 105 0 547
Python 20 98 65 404
SVG 1 0 0 173
TeX 1 3 0 141
YAML 4 4 4 119
Jupyter Notebook 1 0 624 82
TOML 2 4 0 59
C 1 9 1 33
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 53 861 1005 5114
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1007/s41781-021-00053-3 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5539722 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.6522027 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.1016/S0168-9002(97)00048-X is OK
- 10.1088/0954-3899/43/8/084001 is OK
- 10.1051/epjconf/202024506002 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
Wordcount for paper.md
is 1079
@PerilousApricot and @jpata - 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.
As you can see above, you each should use the command @editorialbot generate my checklist
to create your review checklist. @editorialbot commands need to be the first thing in a new comment.
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, reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#4452
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 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 (@danielskatz) if you have any questions/concerns.
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Hi @PerilousApricot and @jpata - I just wanted to check in and see how things are going...
Hello @danielskatz Sorry for the delay! I need to set up a julia environment to get some of these checks. Soon!
From my side, I'm done with the initial paper review and have left some issues:
I'm also going to try out the library in the next days and check off the functionality/performance based on that.
👋 @tamasgal - you can work on the two issues from @jpata at this point if you want; you don't need to wait for one of both review to be complete.
Thanks, we are already working on the improvements!
👋 @PerilousApricot - Can I check in with you on the status of your review?
👋 @PerilousApricot - checking in again...
Errrr, apparently the Github email connector isn't working?? Sorry about that -- I tried to say earlier that I was on vacation until the 13th... I've nearly completed the review now and should be able to sign off on the paper in the next hour
LGTM! Great paper & great project all
👋 @PerilousApricot and @jpata - it looks like both of you have checked off all items on your lists. Please confirm that you are ready for this to be accepted.
@danielskatz I confirm that I am ready for this to be accepted
Ah, @jpata, I see that you didn't check off an item: "Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?"
What needs to be done for you to check this off?
I think when he comes back from vacation and take a look at the PR that closed:
they probably can decide if we have more items to do
Ok, thanks - I didn't realize he was on vacation
👋 @jpata - can you check on the few comments above ☝️ and let us know if you think more work is needed or this is ready to go? (sorry for the delay on my part here - I was also on vacation the last 2 weeks)
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Sorry for the delay on my part due to vacations.
The paper has been improved significantly and all the content-related comments have been addressed, but I think it could still benefit from some language-level improvements. I'm not a native speaker, but here are some suggestions which could improve readability.
11. The High-Energy Physics (HEP) community, especially the group doing analysis, has facing the two-language problem for a long time. -> ... especially in data analysis, has been facing ...
14. is extremely hard to express in columnar -> can be challenging to express
16. leads to either writing C++ kernels and interface them -> ... and interfacing them
26. the existing usage often rely on -> often relies on
26. newer techniques such as automatic differentiation also works more smoothly without language barriers, allows physicists to DIY algorithms themselves. -> ... also work more smoothly without language barriers, allowing physicists to develop algorithms.
68. can be done with 0 code addition -> can be done with no code addition
If you want to go forward as-is, I will be happy to sign off, but I think a little bit of polishing of the language could make the paper even better.
Thanks @jpata!
@tamasgal - can you go ahead and address these language comments?
Also, I'll do a final proof-read when everything else seems ready.
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
All items are checked off on my side!
thanks @jpata
@tamasgal - next I'll do a proof-read and then we can start the final steps in publication
@tamasgal - I suggest a number of changes in the paper and one in the bib in https://github.com/JuliaHEP/UnROOT.jl/pull/179
@editorialbot generate pdf
Thanks for merging the PR. At this point, assuming everything looks ok to you in the PDF that will soon be generated, can you:
I can then move forward with accepting the submission.
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Thanks @danielskatz and sorry for the late response (lot of traveling lately).
I fixed the Zenodo entry and created and archived a new version of UnROOT: 0.8.11
Here is the DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7008076
@editorialbot set 0.8.11 as version
Done! version is now 0.8.11
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7008076 as archive
Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7008076
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1007/s41781-021-00053-3 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5539722 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.6522027 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.1016/S0168-9002(97)00048-X is OK
- 10.1088/0954-3899/43/8/084001 is OK
- 10.1051/epjconf/202024506002 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/3446, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept
@editorialbot accept
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:
Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...
Congratulations to @tamasgal (Tamás Gál) and co-authors!!
And thanks to @PerilousApricot and @jpata for reviewing! We couldn't do this without you
: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.04452/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04452)
HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04452">
<img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04452/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>
reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04452/status.svg
:target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04452
This is how it will look in your documentation:
We need your help!
The 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:
Many thanks Daniel, and of course big thanks to the reviewers too! :)
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@tamasgal<!--end-author-handle-- (Tamás Gál) Repository: https://github.com/JuliaHEP/UnROOT.jl Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: 0.8.11 Editor: !--editor-->@danielskatz<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @PerilousApricot, @jpata Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7008076
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
@PerilousApricot & @jpata, 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 @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 ✨
Checklists
📝 Checklist for @PerilousApricot
📝 Checklist for @jpata