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
@mark-hammond, @imalsky β This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on. Thanks again for agreeing to participate!
π Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above, and generate your checklists by commenting @editorialbot generate my checklist
on this issue ASAP. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.
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. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#4872
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.
We aim for the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks but please try to make a start ahead of this as JOSS reviews are by their nature iterative and any early feedback you may be able to provide to the author will be very helpful in meeting this schedule.
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@imalsky β A reminder to keep this on your radar. Please generate your checklist and start taking a look as soon as you can. Thanks!!
Thanks! I opened a review. My apologies if I get any of the process wrong, this is my first JOSS review.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:40 AM Dan Foreman-Mackey @.***> wrote:
@imalsky https://github.com/imalsky β A reminder to keep this on your radar. Please generate your checklist and start taking a look as soon as you can. Thanks!!
β Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/4872#issuecomment-1297191041, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALEHJJJO2AJQKLC6QEJIPRLWF7K5BANCNFSM6AAAAAARLMWYAU . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
@dfm, is it recommended that I also make any suggestion for improvements/questions in the paper or code, or simply check the above guideline checklist?
@imalsky β absolutely! The checklist is our priority, but any other suggestions would be excellent. I recommend opening any comments as issues on the repo.
Everything looks good to me! I had an issue open on the repo that I've now closed also
Thank you for addressing the comments, I have ticked all the boxes now and closed the issue thread on the other repo. This is a great piece of code, thank you for sharing it in this way!
Awesome!! Thanks @mark-hammond and @imalsky for your constructive reviews! I really appreciate all the time that you volunteered to this process.
@kathlandgren β I have a couple of final edits to do then I'll have some quick tasks for you before we publish. I'm totally swamped today, but I'll get to this before the end of the week. Thanks for your patience!
Thanks for inviting me! It was my pleasure
On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 3:20 AM Dan Foreman-Mackey @.***> wrote:
Awesome!! Thanks @mark-hammond https://github.com/mark-hammond and @imalsky https://github.com/imalsky for your constructive reviews! I really appreciate all the time that you volunteered to this process.
@kathlandgren https://github.com/kathlandgren β I have a couple of final edits to do then I'll have some quick tasks for you before we publish. I'm totally swamped today, but I'll get to this before the end of the week. Thanks for your patience!
β Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/4872#issuecomment-1333611884, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALEHJJLZKCOYPZOV4E5VKODWLCCZJANCNFSM6AAAAAARLMWYAU . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
@editorialbot check references
@editorialbot generate pdf
: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
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aabcc8 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/887 is OK
- 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/9 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201321132 is OK
- 10.1086/506312 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stt1509 is OK
- 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114065 is OK
- 10.1086/375015 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/71 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/134 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023068 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1029/96jc02776 may be a valid DOI for title: Hydrostatic, quasi-hydrostatic, and nonhydrostatic ocean modeling
- 10.3847/0004-637x/829/1/52 may be a valid DOI for title: The impact of non-uniform thermal structure on the interpretation of exoplanet emission spectra
- 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7a06 may be a valid DOI for title: Resolving orbital and climate keys of earth and extraterrestrial environments with dynamics (ROCKE-3D) 1.0: a general circulation model for simulating the climates of rocky planets
- 10.1016/j.ocemod.2011.02.013 may be a valid DOI for title: What processes drive the ocean heat transport?
- 10.1086/523957 may be a valid DOI for title: Hydrodynamic simulations of unevenly irradiated Jovian planets
- 10.1175/1520-0493(2001)129<2346:svfswe>2.0.co;2 may be a valid DOI for title: Spectral viscosity for shallow water equations in spherical geometry
- 10.1029/2019ms002015 may be a valid DOI for title: The GFDL Earth System Model version 4.1 (GFDL-ESM 4.1): Overall coupled model description and simulation characteristics
INVALID DOIs
- None
@kathlandgren β I've opened a PR with some minor edits to the paper. After merging or responding to that, here are the final steps that I'll need from you:
@dfm Thank you for the edits and for your help!
Version is: v1.0.0
DOI of the release is: 10.5281/zenodo.7402247
@editorialbot set v1.0.0 as version
Done! version is now v1.0.0
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7402247 as archive
Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7402247
@editorialbot generate pdf
@kathlandgren β Thanks! Can you take one last look through the proofs π and make sure that you're happy?
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
The proofs look great to me!
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1029/96jc02776 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aabcc8 is OK
- 10.3847/0004-637x/829/1/52 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/887 is OK
- 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/9 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201321132 is OK
- 10.1086/506312 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stt1509 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7a06 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ocemod.2011.02.013 is OK
- 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114065 is OK
- 10.1086/375015 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/71 is OK
- 10.1086/523957 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/134 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0493(2001)129<2346:svfswe>2.0.co;2 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023068 is OK
- 10.1029/2019ms002015 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
:wave: @openjournals/aass-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/3781, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept
@editorialbot accept
Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...
π¦π¦π¦ π Tweet for this paper π π¦π¦π¦
πππ π Toot for this paper π πππ
π¨π¨π¨ THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! π¨π¨π¨
Here's what you must now do:
Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...
@mark-hammond, @imalsky β Many thanks for your reviews here! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you!!
@kathlandgren β Your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS! :zap::rocket::boom:
: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.04872/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04872)
HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04872">
<img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04872/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>
reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04872/status.svg
:target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04872
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:
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@kathlandgren<!--end-author-handle-- (Ekaterina Landgren) Repository: https://github.com/kathlandgren/SWAMPE Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@dfm<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @mark-hammond, @imalsky Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7402247
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
@mark-hammond & @imalsky, 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 @dfm know.
β¨ 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 β¨
Checklists
π Checklist for @mark-hammond
π Checklist for @imalsky