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=0.11 s (454.7 files/s, 123093.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVG 6 5 5 8853
Python 14 261 471 870
CSS 1 0 5 853
YAML 3 2 5 504
Markdown 11 121 0 274
TeX 1 0 0 131
Bourne Shell 8 57 91 118
HTML 1 3 1 77
Jupyter Notebook 1 0 146 49
JavaScript 1 8 38 37
Dockerfile 1 0 0 10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 48 457 762 11776
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 1373
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.5281/zenodo.6658322 is OK
- 10.17603/ds2-0phb-dg64 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1016/j.cma.2022.115704 may be a valid DOI for title: Model-Free Data-Driven Inference in Computational Mechanics
INVALID DOIs
- None
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@editorialbot add @karanprime as reviewer
@karanprime added to the reviewers list!
@karanprime, thanks for agreeing to review. In order to generate your checklist, please write the following comment: @editorialbot generate my checklist
@editorialbot commands
Hello @olgadoronina, 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
π @TranzWu @karanprime, could you please update us on how it's going with your reviews?
@olgadoronina, I notive there are a number of unchecked boxes in your checklists. Are these issues which should be fixed by the authors? If so, could you please elaborate here or by opening issues in the source repository?
Just so I can track what I'm waiting on (didn't want to add chatter around the official review checklist)
https://github.com/geoelements/gns/issues/34
https://github.com/geoelements/gns/issues/41
https://github.com/geoelements/gns/issues/40
https://github.com/geoelements/gns/issues/35
Thanks @WPettersson this is really useful.
π @TranzWu @karanprime, could you please update us on how it's going with your reviews?
@karanprime and @TranzWu, thanks for starting your reviews! If there are issues you think should be addressed, please report it either here or by opening issues in the source repository.
@karanprime and @TranzWu, thanks for starting your reviews! If there are issues you think should be addressed, please report it either here or by opening issues in the source repository.
π @TranzWu, @olgadoronina, @WPettersson, @karanprime, could you please update us on how it's going with your reviews?
@kks32, FYI I'm also contacting the reviewers by e-mail, so hopefully we will have some progress in not too long.
@kks32, I notice that @WPettersson has opened several issues in the source repo. Could you please update us on how it's going addressing these issues?
Hi @osorensen I'm working on addressing all the issues. Will finalize the response and update by next week. Thank you!
Thanks @kks32!
π @kks32, any updates on how it's going addressing the issues?
@osorensen Thank you. We had a major update to PyTorch 2.0 for our packages, that helps address the issue of installation. I will complete the other tasks listed in our repo shortly.
:wave: @kks32, any updates on how it's going addressing the issues raised by the reviewers?
@osorensen Just wanted to point out that I think most of the issues have been addressed (possibly all). I just need to go through the new paper version and check that out and I might be ready to sign off.
Thanks for pointing this out, @WPettersson. Looking forward to hearing back from you.
π @TranzWu, @olgadoronina, @karanprime, could you please take another look at this submission, and see if some them missing boxes in your review checklists can now be checked? Please elaborate here or in the source repository if you have any further issues.
@osorensen Thanks, I will go through the new version of the paper and update the review.
@osorensen Just wanted to point out that I think most of the issues have been addressed (possibly all). I just need to go through the new paper version and check that out and I might be ready to sign off.
@WPettersson, have you had a chance yet to go through this submission once more to see if the items in your checklist can be checked off?
@kks32, I notice that you haven't responded to this issue opened by @WPettersson. Could you please give us a timeline for when it will be fixed?
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@osorensen Sorry for the delay, I've gone through it all now and am happy with this publication, with the one caveat that the paper itself is ~1300 words long.
Thanks a lot for your work @WPettersson! I think the word count for the paper is fine, particularly since the number of references contributes to inflating it a bit.
π @TranzWu, could you please take a new look at your checklist and see if further of the boxes can be checked? If you have any particular points about the submission, please mention them here or open an issue in the source repository.
π @olgadoronina, could you please take a new look at your checklist and see if further of the boxes can be checked? If you have any particular points about the submission, please mention them here or open an issue in the source repository.
π @karanprime, could you please take a new look at your checklist and see if further of the boxes can be checked? If you have any particular points about the submission, please mention them here or open an issue in the source repository.
π @TranzWu, could you please take a new look at your checklist and see if further of the boxes can be checked? If you have any particular points about the submission, please mention them here or open an issue in the source repository.
π @olgadoronina, could you please take a new look at your checklist and see if further of the boxes can be checked? If you have any particular points about the submission, please mention them here or open an issue in the source repository.
@olgadoronina, I also tried to reach out to you by e-mail. It would be much appreciated if you could please take a new look at the submission.
π @karanprime, could you please take a new look at your checklist and see if further of the boxes can be checked? If you have any particular points about the submission, please mention them here or open an issue in the source repository.
@karanprime, I also tried to reach out to you by e-mail. It would be much appreciated if you could please take a new look at the submission.
@kks32, sorry that this is taking so long, but I'm not able to get in touch with the reviewers, either by e-mail or GitHub. If I don't get any response by the end of this week, I will have to state looking for an additional reviewer. I'll keep you posted.
Thank you @osorensen ! I understand.
π @archermarx @ashwinvis, would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html
:wave: @ipadjen, @ashwinvis, @OHildreth would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html
π @archermarx @ashwinvis, would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html
Apologies for the delay on this. I was at a conference. I am happy to review this submission!
Thanks a lot @archermarx!
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@kks32<!--end-author-handle-- (Krishna Kumar) Repository: https://github.com/geoelements/gns Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.1.1 Editor: !--editor-->@osorensen<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @WPettersson, @archermarx Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8249813
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
@WPettersson & @archermarx, 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.
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 @WPettersson
π Checklist for @archermarx