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=0.10 s (490.1 files/s, 207933.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML 1 1711 2 13286
Python 21 676 802 1647
SVG 1 1 1 582
Markdown 3 60 0 179
reStructuredText 10 92 92 156
TeX 1 18 0 141
YAML 4 24 28 141
Jupyter Notebook 2 0 189 55
DOS Batch 1 8 1 26
make 1 4 7 9
Bourne Shell 1 0 0 1
JSON 1 0 0 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 47 2594 1122 16224
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 1334
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.5194/gmd-11-2475-2018 is OK
- 10.5334/dsj-2020-006 is OK
- 10.22215/pn/10120001 is OK
- 10.5194/essd-7-245-2015 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.2100163118 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-12-4443-2019 is OK
- 10.1038/s43017-021-00247-8 is OK
- 10.1016/S1366-7017(01)00066-6 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 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:
👋🏼 @Elchin and @mdpiper this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications about this review will happen here from now on.
At the top of the thread is https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/4704#issue-1348227281 a comment with key information about the review process. Please read it carefully. If you have issues as you go about your review, let me know, and I'll provide guidance and assistance.
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 https://gitlab.com/permafrostnet/teaspoon. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/4704 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.
I'll set an automatic reminder for four weeks from now.
Please feel free to ping me (@krbarnhart or krbarnhart@usgs.gov) if you have any questions/concerns.
Thank you for contributing a review to JOSS.
@editorialbot remind @Elchin in four weeks
Reminder set for @Elchin in four weeks
@editorialbot remind @mdpiper in four weeks
Reminder set for @mdpiper in four weeks
:wave: @Elchin, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
:wave: @mdpiper, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
@Elchin and @mdpiper - I see you have both started your reviews, and have also started opening issues in the main repository. Thank you!
If you could write a quick update here indicating when you anticipate completing your review, that would be excellent. Completing your review doesn't mean you need to have checked off every checkbox in the above lists... If there are checkboxes that you do not think can be checked yet, make an issue in the source repository indicating why, or make a comment here.
Let me know if you have any questions.
👋 @kbarnhart One last issue (#13) in the manuscript repo. Once it's addressed by the author, my review will be complete.
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
I just noticed a small error in the inline citations. This has been fixed.
@editorialbot generate pdf
@editorialbot generate pdf
a command needs to be the first thing in a comment...
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@kbarnhart My review is complete. A summary note: this is a tidy, well-focused package, perfect for JOSS. Years ago, I worked with snow temperature profile data from Campbell Scientific CR-10 dataloggers. This package would have been helpful!
Thanks for the review @mdpiper!
Hi @nicholas512, I am almost done with my reviews, just waiting for you to address my comments.
Thanks for letting me know @Elchin - I didn't get notified on github. I'll take a look at those.
Thanks for the feedback in this issue @Elchin (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/issues/3518). We ideally would like review comments to be posted either here and/or on the software repo directly (https://gitlab.com/permafrostnet/teaspoon).
I'm going to close https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/issues/3518 but just wanted to reinforce that I'm grateful for the review but am simply cleaning upon the joss-papers issues.
@Elchin and @mdpiper thank you for these reviews. Sorry that I also missed your review comment @Elchin. I'll paste the contents in the tsp repository shortly.
@nicholas512 - when you have completed addressing all reviewer comments, please ping me. I'll review the changes and then ask the reviewers to revisit their reviews.
I've placed @Elchin 's comments here: https://gitlab.com/permafrostnet/teaspoon/-/issues/14
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@kbarnhart my review is done. I will be leaving it up to @nicholas512 if he wants to include gap-filling and QA/QC process discussion in the paper. @nicholas512 please copy-paste your responses here https://gitlab.com/permafrostnet/teaspoon/-/issues/14. Thank you!
Thanks everyone. I've copied the responses and added an abridged version of the discussion in this commit.
@kbarnhart - I'm ready for you to review the changes and confirm the changes with the reviewers
@editorialbot check references
@editorialbot generate pdf
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.5194/gmd-11-2475-2018 is OK
- 10.5334/dsj-2020-006 is OK
- 10.22215/pn/10120001 is OK
- 10.5194/essd-7-245-2015 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.2100163118 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-12-4443-2019 is OK
- 10.1038/s43017-021-00247-8 is OK
- 10.1016/S1366-7017(01)00066-6 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-13-2825-2020 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-7-2831-2014 is OK
- 10.5194/essd-10-2311-2018 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:
@Elchin and @mdpiper , thank you for your reviews. I have looked at the reviews, @nicholas512's responses, and the changes to the code base and paper. I've concluded that @nicholas512 has responded sufficiently. Please revisit your review, check any remaining checkboxes (@mdpiper you have one remaining) and make a comment on this thread confirming that you think this submission can move forward to the final steps before publication.
I do want to clarify a comment from you @Elchin. When you wrote
Overall, it is a timely and important software that still requires a lot of work due heterogeneity of the permafrost datasets. However, this is the first substantial attempt in the right direction. Standardization of the data collection and processing procedures are required to make this software universal.
Do you mean that the software requires a lot of work to publish in JOSS or to fully realize the goal of standardizing permafrost data collection and processing procedures. I think that you mean the later because you indicate that this is "the first substantial attempt" and also indicated in the checklist that this submission met the substantial scholarly effort criterion.
@nicholas512, at the same time that the reviewers are revisiting their reviews, I have a few minor editorial comments to address.
@kbarnhart This submission can move forward.
@kbarnhart : Thanks for catching those issues; I've made the changes in commit cd74fb9a
@kbarnhart I mean the latter. As I mentioned in my comments, the permafrost data are not ground temperatures only. It is more diverse and requires acknowledgment of this fact. That said it would be nice to think about how the current product could be possibly extended to address a more diverse data spectrum.
@Elchin thanks for the clarification. Much appreciated.
@nicholas512 at this point could you:
At that point I will update the paper metadata and recommend the submission be accepted. At that point one of the JOSS EIC's will handle final processing.
@kbarnhart
@editorialbot check references
@editorialbot generate pdf
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7121289 as archive
Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7121289
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@editorialbot set v1.3.1 as version
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@nicholas512<!--end-author-handle-- (Nick Brown) Repository: https://gitlab.com/permafrostnet/teaspoon Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss Version: v1.3.1 Editor: !--editor-->@kbarnhart<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @Elchin, @mdpiper Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7121289
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
@Elchin & @mdpiper, 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 @kbarnhart 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 @mdpiper
📝 Checklist for @Elchin