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
Checking the BibTeX entries failed with the following error:
Failed to parse BibTeX entry: cite-key missing
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.14 s (249.2 files/s, 57751.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 8 304 271 2558
Cython 7 519 809 1508
reStructuredText 6 194 169 428
TeX 1 19 0 184
Markdown 2 73 0 162
CSS 1 42 20 158
YAML 4 14 4 113
Jupyter Notebook 2 0 272 37
JSON 1 0 0 15
TOML 1 0 0 7
SVG 1 0 0 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 34 1165 1545 5171
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 998
Failed to discover a Statement of need
section in paper
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@LuisScoccola, it looks like you may have a typo in a citation somewhere that's borking the BibTeX checker, take a look at that when you can since those checks will eventually have to pass to accept the submission.
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@editorialbot commands
Hello @LuisScoccola, 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
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1007/978-3-642-37456-2_14 is OK
- 10.1109/ICDMW.2017.12 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1145/3068335 is OK
- 10.1145/2535927 is OK
- 10.1137/20M1388425 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1512.00180 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.21105/joss.00205 may be a valid DOI for title: hdbscan: Hierarchical density based clustering.
INVALID DOIs
- None
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1007/978-3-642-37456-2_14 is OK
- 10.1109/ICDMW.2017.12 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00205 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1145/3068335 is OK
- 10.1145/2535927 is OK
- 10.1137/20M1388425 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1512.00180 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
@rkurchin Thank you for pointing out the bibtex issue. I think I have fixed it. Please let me know if there is anything that I should look into.
Happy New Year, everyone! Hope everyone had a great holiday. Just a friendly reminder for reviewers @lmcinnes and @AP6YC to get reviews started and let me know if you have any questions about the process. :)
Hi again, checking in once more with @lmcinnes and @AP6YC about reviewing – if you need any guidance about getting started, don't hesitate to ask!
Hi @rkurchin, sorry for the delay. I will get my checklist started below and begin my review.
Hi reviewers @AP6YC and @lmcinnes, just checking in on your review progress! Reminder that as you progress through your checklist, if you encounter any issues, feel free to file in the source repo. If you do so, mention (i.e. link to) this review so I can easily track progress. Thanks!
Sorry, I was having installation issues (on my end from my environment manager; not the package), and set it aside for a little while.
I have a couple of minor issues that I'll file imminently, but mostly it looks good to me.
@lmcinnes thanks a lot for your feedback! I have tried to address the issues. Please let me know if I have missed anything.
Thanks Luis, it all looks good to me now. Thanks forgetting the changes made so swiftly.
@rkurchin I am done the review, all the boxes are checked, and it looks good to go from me. Is there anything more I need to do at this stage?
@lmcinnes, nope, thanks very much! Now we're just waiting on the other review from @AP6YC!
I am overall happy with the contributions of the package, and I would like to congratulate the authors and programmers for making such useful and relevant software. The authors should feel proud of their work.
I apologize for the delay, but I have nearly completed my review, contingent on only a few points. I have provided two non-blocking issues on the repo in the form of questions and suggestions, and I have one minor blocking issue for improving the API reference. In short, I have a suggestion for the improvement of the API index that I would like addressed (with hopefully minimal time required of the authors) and two questions that may be long-term changes, which is why I do not wish for them to be addressed before my approval.
These issues are:
Non-blocking (not necessary to complete my review):
Blocking (small suggestions that I would like implemented or explained):
Thank you for the feedback @AP6YC ! I have tried to address the last issue.
Hi @AP6YC, just checking in if you're happy for this to be published at this point? If so, can you check the last box on your checklist and let us know in a comment?
@rkurchin I sincerely apologize for this latest delay, but I am indeed satisfied with the latest changes; they correctly and successfully address the last issue, and I am happy for this to be published. Great work and congratulations to all the authors/programmers of the project.
Great, thanks everyone! Authors, I'll do an editorial pass over the manuscript and send any comments shortly. In the meantime, the next steps for you are:
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1007/978-3-642-37456-2_14 is OK
- 10.1109/ICDMW.2017.12 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00205 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1145/3068335 is OK
- 10.1145/2535927 is OK
- 10.1137/20M1388425 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1512.00180 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
@editorialbot generate pdf
@editorialbot generate pdf
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@rkurchin Here's the DOI created with Zenodo: 10.5281/zenodo.7697173, and here is the corresponding website https://zenodo.org/record/7697173. The reviewers' comments have been incorporated in version 0.4.0, which is the one the DOI points to. Please let me know if there's anything I have missed.
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7697173 as archive
Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7697173
@editorialbot set 0.4.0 as version
Done! version is now 0.4.0
Some very minor editorial suggestions:
Otherwise, this looks good!
@rkurchin Thank you for the feedback! I have implemented the suggestions except for the one about line 52, since it is indeed standard phrasing.
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
: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/4031, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1007/978-3-642-37456-2_14 is OK
- 10.1109/ICDMW.2017.12 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00205 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1145/3068335 is OK
- 10.1145/2535927 is OK
- 10.1137/20M1388425 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1512.00180 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@LuisScoccola<!--end-author-handle-- (Luis Scoccola) Repository: https://github.com/LuisScoccola/persistable Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper Version: 0.4.0 Editor: !--editor-->@rkurchin<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @lmcinnes, @AP6YC Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7697173
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
@lmcinnes & @AP6YC, 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 @rkurchin 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 @AP6YC
📝 Checklist for @lmcinnes