[REVIEW]: UBayFS: An R Package for User Guided Feature Selection

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@annajenul@osorensen<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @dhvalden, @aaronpeikert, @EugeneHao Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7554373

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a7ebe73cf7176317c9ebfe1385dcae51"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a7ebe73cf7176317c9ebfe1385dcae51/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a7ebe73cf7176317c9ebfe1385dcae51/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a7ebe73cf7176317c9ebfe1385dcae51)

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:

@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 @aaronpeikert

📝 Checklist for @EugeneHao

📝 Checklist for @dhvalden

osorensen commented 1 year ago

Thanks @annajenul. I'll read through the paper once more and let you know if I have an further comments.

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:

annajenul 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:

annajenul 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:

osorensen commented 1 year ago

@annajenul 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 recommending acceptance of the submission.

annajenul commented 1 year ago

[x] Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here: v1.0.0
[x] Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g., figshare, an institutional repository): https://zenodo.org/record/7554373#.Y8qHi6dBxFE
[x] 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.
[x] Please list the DOI of the archived version here: 10.5281/zenodo.7554373

osorensen commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot set v1.0.0 as version

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Done! version is now v1.0.0

osorensen commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7554373 as archive

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7554373

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

- 10.1109/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
- 10.18637/jss.v036.i11 is OK
- 10.1016/j.knosys.2016.11.017 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/3891, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

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

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot 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:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/3910
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04848
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

arfon commented 1 year ago

@dhvalden, @aaronpeikert, @EugeneHao – 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 ✨

@annajenul – 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.04848/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04848)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04848">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04848/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04848/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04848

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:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

openjournals / joss-reviews