[REVIEW]: FieldCompare: A Python package for regression testing simulation results

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@dglaeser@danielskatz<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @idoby, @WilliamJamieson Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7588449

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/aed2111437d48a44a0d6e13bc6da43b2"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/aed2111437d48a44a0d6e13bc6da43b2/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/aed2111437d48a44a0d6e13bc6da43b2/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/aed2111437d48a44a0d6e13bc6da43b2)

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

@idoby & @WilliamJamieson, 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 @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 @idoby

📝 Checklist for @WilliamJamieson

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

- 10.1016/j.advwatres.2011.03.007 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1183562 is OK
- 10.11588/ans.2017.1.27447 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2020.02.012 is OK
- 10.1007/s00607-008-0004-9 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2020.06.007 is OK
- 10.1515/jnma-2022-0054 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2011.04.012 is OK
- 10.25495/7GXK-RD71 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5603255 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2021.108249 is OK
- 10.24355/dbbs.084-202210121528-0 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7469695 is OK
- 10.1109/IEEESTD.1985.82928 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-23099-8 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

: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/3925, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

I've suggested some changes to the paper in https://gitlab.com/dglaeser/fieldcompare/-/merge_requests/193

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

And some minor changes in cases in the bib file in https://gitlab.com/dglaeser/fieldcompare/-/merge_requests/194

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

Please merge these, or let me know what you disagree with, then we can continue the acceptance/publishing process

dglaeser commented 1 year ago

@danielskatz, thanks a lot for your improvements! I merged both branches.

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

@dglaeser - please check the proof version that is being generated now, to make sure nothing was incorrectly changed in my minor edits, and let me know

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.advwatres.2011.03.007 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1183562 is OK
- 10.11588/ans.2017.1.27447 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2020.02.012 is OK
- 10.1007/s00607-008-0004-9 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2020.06.007 is OK
- 10.1515/jnma-2022-0054 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2011.04.012 is OK
- 10.25495/7GXK-RD71 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5603255 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2021.108249 is OK
- 10.24355/dbbs.084-202210121528-0 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7469695 is OK
- 10.1109/IEEESTD.1985.82928 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-23099-8 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

: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/3926, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

dglaeser commented 1 year ago

@danielskatz, I stumbled across three things, which I think were introduced in one of your merge requests. I edited them here: https://gitlab.com/dglaeser/fieldcompare/-/merge_requests/195, would you mind double-checking?

I noticed after my modifications in !195 that you had just introduced the changes related to putting the punctuation inside the parentheses. I wasn't aware that this is the rule, but I also couldn't verify that it is with a (quick) google search. The top matches of my search suggest the opposite: https://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2013/03/punctuation-junction-periods-and-parentheses.html

But if this is the correct way to go, I can simply kick out the two commits again. I guess the commit fixing the newline should be fine.

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

the punctuation change I made is correct for most US English, which I think is what is being used here. I don't think the newline matters either way, as both should generate the same PDF, I think

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

sorry, you are right - the punctuation change I made was wrong.

dglaeser commented 1 year ago

ok, so I merge !195? Everything else looked fine to me.

I noticed the newline while reading the proof version of the pdf, this is what I get:

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

I guess so - I'm not sure why that is happening, but let's try to fix it

dglaeser commented 1 year ago

I merged it, the .pdf looks fine to me now.

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

Let's try an official preview again. Can you again check this after it completes, and verify that it look good to you?

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

- 10.1016/j.advwatres.2011.03.007 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1183562 is OK
- 10.11588/ans.2017.1.27447 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2020.02.012 is OK
- 10.1007/s00607-008-0004-9 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2020.06.007 is OK
- 10.1515/jnma-2022-0054 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2011.04.012 is OK
- 10.25495/7GXK-RD71 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5603255 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2021.108249 is OK
- 10.24355/dbbs.084-202210121528-0 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7469695 is OK
- 10.1109/IEEESTD.1985.82928 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-23099-8 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

: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/3927, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

dglaeser commented 1 year ago

@danielskatz looks good to me, thanks a lot!

danielskatz 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/3928
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04905
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

dglaeser commented 1 year ago

thanks a lot for your help @danielskatz, @idoby, @WilliamJamieson !

idoby commented 1 year ago

@dglaeser Sure thing, congrats! 🥳 Can't wait to use this

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

Congratulations to @dglaeser (Dennis Gläser) and co-authors!!

And thanks to @idoby and @WilliamJamieson for reviewing! We couldn't do this without you

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.04905/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04905)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04905">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04905/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04905/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04905

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