Closed editorialbot closed 1 year ago
Hello @pradeeban, 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
# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint
# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers
@ZacharyJia, if you can address my major comments in the paper and produce a revised version, I will continue the review on the revised paper.
The emulator vs simulator clarification early on in the summary and throughout the paper. Mininet should be mentioned as emulator, and performance claims should be ideally made against simulators (such as NS-3), for fairness. Functional claims can be made against simulators and emulators. Overall, I propose some writeup enhancements for accuracy and completeness. Please feel free to get back to me if any of my comments are unclear.
Please do a spellcheck and grammar check using a software such as Grammarly. I spotted some typos.
Please define acronyms and more citations (especially to the network simulators) as appropriate.
Module-level documentation should be improved. You have 3 modules. 2 of them have README in Chinese. One does not have README.
Please note the current state of "Review checklist for @pradeeban" is filled with my current review of the paper and the open source software.
@pradeeban Thanks for your comment! I will revise the paper and let you know once I'm done.
@suriya-ganesh & @championn & @pradeeban & @achanda & @imw & @Flowdalic - Is there any chance one of you would be able to help out and review this JOSS submission of Windows SDN simulation software?
I am sorry, but I do not use Windows and the submission is not really my area of expertise.
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Hi @pradeeban, I have revised the paper and updated the code repository to add module-level documents. Could you please review it again and let me know if you have other suggestions? Thanks!
Thanks, @ZacharyJia, I will make another pass.
Thanks @pradeeban (and sorry as I was on vacation last week and am catching up now). For the items you didn't check off above, what is needed by the authors for your to be able to check them off? (Of course, if you are still working on this, that's fine too.)
Hi @danielskatz, I am still awaiting @ZacharyJia's responses to https://github.com/ZacharyJia/opsdn/issues/6 and https://github.com/ZacharyJia/opsdn/issues/5 before ticking them.
When I checked, I couldn't locate them. If @ZacharyJia updates those issues, I can proceed with these final two checks of the review.
@ZacharyJia - how are you doing with https://github.com/ZacharyJia/opsdn/issues/6 ?
My review is complete. @ZacharyJia has adequately addressed my comments. I have no additional blocking comments at this point.
@pradeeban - thanks for stepping in and doing this relatively quickly and easily!
@editorialbot remove @pausz as reviewer
@pausz removed from the reviewers list!
@ZacharyJia - at this point could you:
I can then move forward with acceptance of the submission, which will involve a dry run, proofreading the paper at that point, and then either suggesting small changes or moving directly to acceptance and publication
@editorialbot commands
Hello @ZacharyJia, 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
# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint
# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers
@ZacharyJia - at this point could you:
* [ ] Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here. * [ ] Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g., figshare, an institutional repository) * [ ] Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) has the correct metadata. This includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it). You may also add the authors' ORCID. * [ ] Please list the DOI of the archived version here.
I can then move forward with acceptance of the submission, which will involve a dry run, proofreading the paper at that point, and then either suggesting small changes or moving directly to acceptance and publication
Hi @danielskatz,
Thanks for your help. I have finished these steps and here is the version tag and DOI:
Archived version tag: v0.2.2
DOI in Zenodo: 10.5281/zenodo.7708397
@editorialbot set v0.2.2. as version
Done! version is now v0.2.2.
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7708397 as archive
Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7708397
@editorialbot recommend-accept
After this, I'll proofread the generated version, and get back to you if anything else is needed
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1145/1868447.1868466 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
:wave: @openjournals/csism-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/4033, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept
@ZacharyJia - I've got some changes to suggest in https://github.com/ZacharyJia/opsdn/pull/8 - please merge this, or let me know what you disagree with, then we can proceed to acceptance and publication
@ZacharyJia - I've got some changes to suggest in ZacharyJia/opsdn#8 - please merge this, or let me know what you disagree with, then we can proceed to acceptance and publication
Really appreciate your suggestions, and I have merged them.
@editorialbot recommend-accept
final check
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1145/1868447.1868466 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
:wave: @openjournals/csism-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/4034, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept
@ZacharyJia - sorry, I missed a space before - please merge https://github.com/ZacharyJia/opsdn/pull/9 and then we should be ready to accept.
@ZacharyJia - sorry, I missed a space before - please merge ZacharyJia/opsdn#9 and then we should be ready to accept.
Done, thank you.
@editorialbot accept
Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...
🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦
🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot 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 @ZacharyJia (Zequn Jia) and co-authors!!
And thanks to @Qingfengmufeng and @pradeeban 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.04815/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04815)
HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04815">
<img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04815/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>
reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04815/status.svg
:target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04815
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:
Congratulations to @ZacharyJia (Zequn Jia) and co-authors!!
And thanks to @Qingfengmufeng and @pradeeban for reviewing!! We couldn't do this without you
@danielskatz - Thank you for your work, it's really great to have OPSDN published in JOSS! @Qingfengmufeng and @pradeeban - Thanks for your help and suggestions!
Congratulations @ZacharyJia, and thank you for your contributions!
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@ZacharyJia<!--end-author-handle-- (Zequn Jia) Repository: https://github.com/ZacharyJia/opsdn Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v0.2.2. Editor: !--editor-->@danielskatz<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @Qingfengmufeng, @pradeeban Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7708397
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
@Qingfengmufeng & @pausz, 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 @Qingfengmufeng
📝 Checklist for @pausz
📝 Checklist for @pradeeban