Closed editorialbot closed 1 year 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=0.09 s (42.7 files/s, 4799.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TeX 1 16 0 204
Markdown 1 28 0 178
YAML 1 1 4 18
SVG 1 0 0 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 4 45 4 401
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 1376
Failed to discover a valid open source license
: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
- 10.1016/j.eswa.2015.07.007 is OK
- 10.1109/ICCV.2015.478 is OK
- 10.1109/TPAMI.2005.159 is OK
- 10.1007/10968987_3 is OK
- 10.1145/2641190.2641198 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
@editorialbot check repository from branch master
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.21 s (931.8 files/s, 38979.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 81 1024 658 3096
Markdown 19 437 0 1227
YAML 67 14 10 639
SVG 10 6 1 495
JavaScript 7 32 36 343
JSON 7 0 0 98
CSS 4 11 10 60
TypeScript 1 5 2 34
Dockerfile 1 1 0 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 197 1530 717 5994
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Failed to discover a Statement of need
section in paper
@editorialbot generate pdf
(should now discover Statement of need
)
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
✅ Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
✅ Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
✅ Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)
✅ A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
✅ Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
✅ Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
✅ Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
✅ Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
✅ Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
The ‘Software Paper’ section of my checklist shows that “State of the field” and “References” need improvement. I failed to discover the state of the field in the paper, and thus, while completing that section, the references will need to be update to reflect the new additions to the paper
The “Documentation” section of my checklist shows that a “Statement of need” is missing. The target audience is covered in the motivation section of the documentation, but the description of the problems the software is designed to solve is weak.
The “Documentation” section of my checklist shows that the “Installation instructions” need improvement. Though there is a requeriments.txt file to automatically install the dependencies, the documentation fails to explicitly describe these dependencies.
@editorialbot commands
Hello @mcasl, here are the things you can ask me to do:
# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands
# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors
# 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 branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch
# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf
# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers
The checklist shows that “Functionality documentation” needs improvement. Though the methods’ documentation reflects the parameters, results and a succinct explanation of what they do, more time has to be devoted to the documentation to clearly explain the new user the elements of the library and how to use them.
Hi @dunnkers, please have a look at the comments above.
Hi @mcasl thanks for the review and @diehlpk thanks for notifying me - I am going to have a look.
@dunnkers how are things going?
@dunnkers how are things going?
Hi @diehlpk. I just merged https://github.com/dunnkers/fseval/pull/81 and am working on https://github.com/dunnkers/fseval/pull/83, making improvements where necessary. So it's in-progress.
Hello,
Can you please change the contact email to the one from my new employer? The old one has been deactivated.
@. @.>
Thank you! Best regards, Estefania
—————————————————————————— Dr. Estefanía Talavera | Assistant Professor Data Management and Biometrics | University of Twente Zilverling room 4098 https://estefaniatalavera.github.io/ https://estefaniatalavera.github.io/ | https://people.utwente.nl/e.talaveramartinez https://people.utwente.nl/e.talaveramartinez
On 23 Aug 2022, at 17:35, The Open Journals editorial robot @. @.>> wrote:
👉📄 Download article proof https://raw.githubusercontent.com/openjournals/joss-papers/joss.04611/joss.04611/10.21105.joss.04611.pdf 📄 View article proof on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/blob/joss.04611/joss.04611/10.21105.joss.04611.pdf 📄 👈
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/4611#issuecomment-1224243707, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACR5ZWCMCPQIW5PBP5LBDC3V2TVUJANCNFSM54WI6XXA. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Dear @estefaniatalavera , you will have to update your email address yourself in your own GitHub settings here:
Thanks :)
Hi @estefaniatalavera could you change your email address?
How is your review going?
@dunnkers @diehlpk
This is a useful package for the community. I would suggest the following improvement to the document:
Improvements documentation website:
@dunnkers Please have a look at the above comments.
@mcasl can you have please a look at the new changes?
@estefaniatalavera can you please run @editorialbot generate my checklist
to generate your checklist?
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Dear @estefaniatalavera @mcasl @diehlpk, I worked hard to process more feedback. These are some of the changes on the repo side of things (package and documentation):
fseval
on AWS (https://github.com/dunnkers/fseval/pull/86)For the paper, I have an open PR here:
Which is to be shortly reviewed by my peer-submitters.
That said, we have been (and are actively) working on processing the feedback of both @mcasl and @estefaniatalavera.
Update:
paper
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@estefaniatalavera and @mcasl could you please have a look at the changes @dunnkers made?
Update: added a recipe called "Comparing Feature Selectors", explaining how to run a benchmark of bigger size and analyse the results in a Jupyter-notebook style explanation. Shows the experiment results using both a table and a plot.
@estefaniatalavera and @mcasl could you please have a look at the changes @dunnkers made?
@dunnkers you mentioned that you were waiting by your peer-submitters, to review the updated version of the paper. Could you confirm if this has already happened?
@dunnkers you mentioned that you were waiting by your peer-submitters, to review the updated version of the paper. Could you confirm if this has already happened?
Hi @estefaniatalavera. Yes this has happened (mentioned at the bottom of this comment ✅). Cheers! 🌞
@estefaniatalavera and @mcasl could you please have a look at the changes @dunnkers made?
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@diehlpk I am satisfied with the current status of the project. How can I proceed to suggest acceptance of this work?
@diehlpk I am satisfied with the current status of the project. How can I proceed to suggest acceptance of this work?
By checking all items in your checklist and letting me know in the comments.
@mcasl how is your review going?
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@dunnkers<!--end-author-handle-- (Jeroen Gerard Sebastiaan Overschie) Repository: https://github.com/dunnkers/fseval Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper Version: 3.1.0 Editor: !--editor-->@diehlpk<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @mcasl, @estefaniatalavera Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7343417
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
@mcasl & @estefaniatalavera, 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 @diehlpk 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 @mcasl
📝 Checklist for @estefaniatalavera