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=0.03 s (753.5 files/s, 138894.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R 13 320 283 1972
TeX 2 66 10 501
Markdown 3 78 0 213
Rmd 2 84 221 122
CSS 1 0 0 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 21 548 514 2809
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 1382
: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
- None
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1109/access.2021.3126429 may be a valid DOI for title: RENT—Repeated Elastic Net Technique for Feature Selection
- 10.1007/s10994-022-06221-9 may be a valid DOI for title: A User-Guided Bayesian Framework for Ensemble Feature Selection in Life Science Applications (UBayFS)
- 10.1016/j.simpa.2022.100414 may be a valid DOI for title: Rdimtools: An R package for dimension reduction and intrinsic dimension estimation
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt383 may be a valid DOI for title: mRMRe: an R package for parallelized mRMR ensemble feature selection
- 10.1016/j.knosys.2016.11.017 may be a valid DOI for title: Ensemble feature selection: Homogeneous and heterogeneous approaches
INVALID DOIs
- None
@editorialbot generate pdf
@editorialbot commands
Hello @EugeneHao, 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
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
I have only gotten around to take a quick look at the installation, dependencies, and automated testing:
I'll check back in two weeks to do the rest.
Thanks @aaronpeikert!
FYI @annajenul, you're welcome to start addressing these issues right away, as the review process in JOSS is supposed to be iterative.
👋 @EugeneHao, could you please update us on how it's going with your review?
@osorensen I just updated the checklist. Thank you for the reminder!
@annajenul I'd like to review the software's functionality more in-depth (by, e.g. simulating some data), but this requires more time than I have this week. Do you prefer that I take an in-depth look, which might lengthen the review by 2-3 weeks or a more cursory look (fitting some models to data where I do not know the true answers)?
@aaronpeikert, I'd like to chime in as an editor here and say that it would be very appreciated if you could take an in-depth look, even though it takes additional time.
Thank you, @osorensen. I want to be mindful that @annajenul might have higher pressure to face as an ECR regarding the timeliness of reviews. In any case, I take the responsibility of reviewing the software seriously—just a question of going the extra mile.
Thank you, @aaronpeikert We would appreciate thorough feedback!
Than you‘ll get it (but give me some time).
👋 @dhvalden could you please update us on how it's going with your review?
Dear @osorensen Thanks for the reminder, I'm updating the check-list now and running the installation and examples.
So far the installation seems to be running ok with the exception of this issue:
As an update, I can confirm the core functionality with the exception of the shiny dashboard. I listed a couple of very minor improvements in here:
I can confirm that the Shiny App works under my set-up. I found some small issues with the app, but they do not affect the main functionality:
Additionally, there is some small issue with the unstated handling of NA
s in the calculations that I think should be more transparent to avoid confusion in the user.
I can also confirm that the test functionality works and all the described tests passed with OK status. Finally, I would like to see mentions in the paper of just a couple of examples of packages or tools with the same functionality, just to have a comparison. If this final point is addressed I would declare myself satisfied and close the review @osorensen.
@EugeneHao and @aaronpeikert, could you please update us on how it's going with your reviews, and whether your points have been properly addressed?
@editorialbot generate pdf
:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.
@editorialbot generate pdf
That was strange. I tried to issue the command once more to see if it was only temporary. If the problem remains I'll try to figure out what has happened.
:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.
@openjournals/dev could you please help us figure out why generating the pdf fails?
The error happens because the bot is trying to find the paper in the master
branch but that branch does not exist (I guess it's been renamed recently?)
@editorialbot set main as branch
Done! branch is now main
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Now the pdf generation should work @aaronpeikert.
Thanks for working this out @xuanxu & @osorensen .
Dear @osorensen, @aaronpeikert, and @EugeneHao, We thank you for your constructive feedback on our software so far. Your comments already helped us a lot to improve the package. Could you please inform us when you anticipate finalizing the review process? Thank you very much!
@aaronpeikert, I notice the unchecked item on your checklist regards documentation, but cannot see any issue about this in the source repository. Could you please elaborate, so @annajenul knows what to fix? Thank you.
My issue has been resolved. The example and shiny app now work well on my machine.
Good to go from my side!
Thanks to both of you!
@editorialbot generate pdf
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3126429 is OK
- 10.1007/s10994-022-06221-9 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v053.i04 is OK
- 10.1016/j.simpa.2022.100414 is OK
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt383 is OK
- 10.1016/j.knosys.2016.11.017 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:
Thank you very much for your time and the great input from your reviews, @aaronpeikert, @dhvalden, and @EugeneHao! Thank you for handling the reviewing process @osorensen :smiley:
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@annajenul<!--end-author-handle-- (Anna Jenul) Repository: https://github.com/annajenul/UBayFS Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main Version: v1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@osorensen<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @dhvalden, @aaronpeikert, @EugeneHao Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7554373
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
@dhvalden & @aaronpeikert & @EugeneHao, 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 @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 @aaronpeikert
📝 Checklist for @EugeneHao
📝 Checklist for @dhvalden