openjournals / joss-reviews

Reviews for the Journal of Open Source Software
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
709 stars 38 forks source link

[REVIEW]: metrica: an R package to evaluate prediction performance of regression and classification point-forecast models #4655

Closed editorialbot closed 1 year ago

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@adriancorrendo<!--end-author-handle-- (Adrian Correndo) Repository: https://github.com/adriancorrendo/metrica/ Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): JOSS Version: v2.0.1.999 Editor: !--editor-->@osorensen<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @wiljnich, @simonpcouch Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7291776

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c3113e0e3fe8c8f9f49d43fde5f4125f"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c3113e0e3fe8c8f9f49d43fde5f4125f/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c3113e0e3fe8c8f9f49d43fde5f4125f/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c3113e0e3fe8c8f9f49d43fde5f4125f)

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

@neerajdhanraj & @kauedesousa, 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:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @osorensen 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 @wiljnich

📝 Checklist for @simonpcouch

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Done! version is now v2.0.1.999

osorensen commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7291776 as archive

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7291776

osorensen commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 1 year ago
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
editorialbot commented 1 year ago
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103194 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01686 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.839854 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03139 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1740-9713.2018.01169.x is OK
- 10.3325/cmj.2020.61.66 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-0-12-811756-9.00009-5 is OK
- 10.1016/j.agsy.2005.11.004 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.02.002 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.07.009 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0269047 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4618017 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01903 is OK
- 10.2134/agronj2000.922345x is OK
- 10.1017/S1464793106007007 is OK
- 10.14358/PERS.72.7.823 is OK
- 10.1038/srep19401 is OK
- 10.1126/science.1205438 is OK
- 10.1214/009053607000000505 is OK
- 10.1016/0304-3800(93)E0074-D is OK
- 10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6 is OK
- 10.1016/j.agsy.2014.01.008 is OK
- 10.1080/02723646.1981.10642213 is OK
- 10.1029/JC090iC05p08995 is OK
- 10.1002/joc.2419 is OK
- 10.1029/1998WR900018 is OK
- 10.5194/adgeo-5-89-2005 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.01.011 is OK
- 10.2307/2088760 is OK
- 10.2307/2089382 is OK
- 10.1016/j.patrec.2008.08.010 is OK
- 10.1016/j.engappai.2007.01.001 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:wave: @openjournals/dsais-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/3682, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

osorensen commented 1 year ago

FYI @openjournals/dsais-eics, we lost contact with the two originally assigned reviewers, and hence got two new ones.

osorensen commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot help

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Hello @osorensen, 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, a reviewer or the editor 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

# Mention the EiCs for the correct track
@editorialbot ping track-eic

# 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
osorensen commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot remove @neerajdhanraj from reviewers

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

@neerajdhanraj removed from the reviewers list!

osorensen commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot remove @kauedesousa from reviewers

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

@kauedesousa removed from the reviewers list!

osorensen commented 1 year ago

I forgot to remove the two reviewers before recommending accept, hence recompiling the paper now, with their names removed.

osorensen commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

adriancorrendo commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

Good evening, Dr. @osorensen

May I ask if any action is required from my side? I see the paper has been stuck for the last 10 days after the decision

👋 @openjournals/dsais-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#3682, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

Thank you for your time!

Best regards,

ADRIAN

osorensen commented 1 year ago

@adriancorrendo we're waiting for the editor in chief @openjournals/dsais-eics to read through and make the final decision.

arfon commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 1 year ago
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:wave: @openjournals/dsais-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/3753, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

editorialbot commented 1 year ago
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103194 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01686 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.839854 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03139 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1740-9713.2018.01169.x is OK
- 10.3325/cmj.2020.61.66 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-0-12-811756-9.00009-5 is OK
- 10.1016/j.agsy.2005.11.004 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.02.002 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.07.009 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0269047 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4618017 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01903 is OK
- 10.2134/agronj2000.922345x is OK
- 10.1017/S1464793106007007 is OK
- 10.14358/PERS.72.7.823 is OK
- 10.1038/srep19401 is OK
- 10.1126/science.1205438 is OK
- 10.1214/009053607000000505 is OK
- 10.1016/0304-3800(93)E0074-D is OK
- 10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6 is OK
- 10.1016/j.agsy.2014.01.008 is OK
- 10.1080/02723646.1981.10642213 is OK
- 10.1029/JC090iC05p08995 is OK
- 10.1002/joc.2419 is OK
- 10.1029/1998WR900018 is OK
- 10.5194/adgeo-5-89-2005 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.01.011 is OK
- 10.2307/2088760 is OK
- 10.2307/2089382 is OK
- 10.1016/j.patrec.2008.08.010 is OK
- 10.1016/j.engappai.2007.01.001 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
arfon commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot commented 1 year ago
Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...
editorialbot commented 1 year ago

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

  1. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/3754
  2. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04655
  3. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
  4. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

arfon commented 1 year ago

Apologies it took a while to get this published folks!

@wiljnich, @simonpcouch – many thanks for your reviews here and to @osorensen for editing this submission! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you ✨

@adriancorrendo – your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS :zap::rocket::boom:

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

: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.04655/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04655)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04655">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04655/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04655/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04655

This is how it will look in your documentation:

DOI

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: