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=1.43 s (767.7 files/s, 251887.3 lines/s)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C++ 207 21907 21433 149809
IDL 615 4700 28762 42937
C/C++ Header 206 6307 7994 32036
C 10 4922 8775 12048
ANTLR Grammar 7 972 1118 7025
make 1 1362 484 2716
CMake 28 255 546 1855
Bourne Shell 1 50 21 515
XML 2 0 0 354
YAML 3 7 7 345
Markdown 2 57 0 320
Python 4 69 128 215
TeX 1 14 0 145
HTML 2 0 108 95
Prolog 5 16 0 75
Fortran 90 1 10 0 28
Bourne Again Shell 1 1 1 13
diff 2 1 15 7
Windows Resource File 1 0 0 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 1099 40650 69392 250539
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 1579
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.48550/arXiv.1101.0679 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1909.02371 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-021-92923-4 is OK
- 10.1126/sciadv.aax2742 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-022-29254-z is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-022-08854-1 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-021-04101-1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.devcel.2021.10.006 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:
@gkthiruvathukal @pjb7687 I have completed my review as reflected by all the boxes being checked above, and believe the paper and software are good to go.
I did decide to finesse this point a bit:
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems)
...in that the various papers citing usage of GDL (and the unit tests, etc) definitely meet this, so all is well - but I feel that adding a short snippet of real-world code in the generally excellent project README.md would be a good idea.
@gkthiruvathukal I have completed my review and believe the paper is ready for publication.
I agree some direct examples of GDL usage and output in the README.md would be nice, but not required with all the other code examples in the unit tests, the .pro files in the library, and references to IDL examples.
@mgalloy and @mohawk2 Thank you for your reviews! It looks like we are ready to move toward acceptance.
@gkthiruvathukal, let me ask for the status of this review, thanks.
@slayoo I think we are ready for the next steps!
Please do the following:
Let me know when these are done!
@slayoo May I ask if I would do that, or you are already doing it? Thanks!
@pjb7687 Apparently, we have already automation in place at Zenodo for archival of every release, so this is automatically done. The question is which version to reference in the paper? This can be "1.0.0", the last one, or perhaps a fresh one? Making a fresh one has the advantage that beforehand we can create the .zenodo.json
file (like here: https://github.com/nipy/nipype/blob/master/.zenodo.json) which will instruct Zenodo how to populate the paper metadata. One problem is that CI fails as of today :( https://github.com/gnudatalanguage/gdl/actions/runs/3317371821
@slayoo I think it makes more sense to me to deposit the version when we submitted the paper to JOSS, as this is the version of GDL that is actually described in the manuscript. We submitted it to JOSS on Jun 22, and I believe this one (https://github.com/gnudatalanguage/gdl/actions/runs/2613108929) is the closest working build. I would like to ask if you agree with it, if so I would deposit it to Zenodo with the manuscript.
@pjb7687 this commit is already published on Zenodo as a weekly release - we can just change its metadata: https://zenodo.org/record/6796032
@slayoo I would prefer to create another one as I hesitate to change the author list of the existing one.
@pjb7687 it's up to you, of course, but I wonder if having two Zenodo archives for the very same commit hash with differing "author lists" is not even more misleading?
Hi all,
Best, Jeongbin
Thank you, @pjb7687!
I've checked the metadata against the paper.md
(https://github.com/gnudatalanguage/gdl/blob/master/paper/paper.md) and clicked on all ORCID links - all seems to match.
@gkthiruvathukal, please do proceed, thanks!
@gkthiruvathukal, please let us know how we can proceed here? Thanks
@arfon, let me kindly ask how could we proceed here? Thanks
@slayoo - I'll help move this forward
@editorialbot set v1.0.0-JOSS as version
Done! version is now v1.0.0-JOSS
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7275468 as archive
Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7275468
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.48550/arXiv.1101.0679 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1909.02371 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-021-92923-4 is OK
- 10.1126/sciadv.aax2742 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-022-29254-z is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-022-08854-1 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-021-04101-1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.devcel.2021.10.006 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/3831, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept
@pjb7687 - I'm another track editor, helping out since the track editor here is out currently. I've proofread the paper, and have made a bunch of small suggestions in https://github.com/gnudatalanguage/gdl/pull/1443 - please merge this, or let me know what you disagree with, then we can proceed.
@danielskatz Just now I've merged the PR. Thank you so much!
@editorialbot recommend-accept
@pjb7687 - once this command finishes, please check the new PDF to make sure everything still looks ok and let me know. I'll do the same, then we can proceed to acceptance and publication
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.48550/arXiv.1101.0679 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1909.02371 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-021-92923-4 is OK
- 10.1126/sciadv.aax2742 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-022-29254-z is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-022-08854-1 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-021-04101-1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.devcel.2021.10.006 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/3832, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept
@danielskatz I reviewed the text again and it looks good to me.
@editorialbot accept
Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...
π¦π¦π¦ π Tweet for this paper π π¦π¦π¦
πππ π Toot for this paper π πππ
π¨π¨π¨ THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! π¨π¨π¨
Here's what you must now do:
Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...
@pjb7687 - the DOI isn't resolving for me yet, so I'm going to keep this open for now - I think this is related to maintenance on Crossref which should be complete and catch up in a few hours
@danielskatz The DOI seems to work now, but the iframe shows me 404 instead of the pdf.
Let's wait a couple of hours, then I can try something else to fix this if it doesn't resolve itself.
Thank you @danielskatz! Thank you @gkthiruvathukal, @mgalloy and @mohawk2!
@editorialbot reaccept
Rebuilding paper!
π Paper updated!
New PDF and metadata files :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/3834
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@pjb7687<!--end-author-handle-- (Jeongbin Park) Repository: https://github.com/gnudatalanguage/gdl Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.0.0-JOSS Editor: !--editor-->@gkthiruvathukal<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @mgalloy, @mohawk2 Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7275468
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
@mgalloy & @mohawk2, 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 @gkthiruvathukal 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 @mgalloy
π Checklist for @mohawk2