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=0.16 s (197.1 files/s, 139470.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 9 862 1251 1230
XML 6 0 0 605
Markdown 3 92 0 234
Jupyter Notebook 4 0 17125 162
TeX 1 22 4 148
YAML 4 10 5 45
reStructuredText 2 34 20 36
DOS Batch 1 8 1 26
make 1 4 6 9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 31 1032 18412 2495
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 845
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1038/nature08227 is OK
- 10.1111/ele.12948 is OK
- 10.1098/rsif.2020.0482 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.2106140118 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0041010 is OK
- 10.1111/2041-210X.13058 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.15681 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-011 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-020-0772-5 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1605.08695 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e612900 may be a valid DOI for title: Keras
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 generate my checklist
θ·εOutlook for Androidhttps://aka.ms/AAb9ysg
From: mikesha2 @.> Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 2:32:23 PM To: openjournals/joss-reviews @.> Cc: Zheng Ran @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [openjournals/joss-reviews] [REVIEW]: ewstools: A Python package for early warning signals of bifurcations in time series data (Issue #5038)
Review checklist for @mikesha2https://github.com/mikesha2 Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
β Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5038#issuecomment-1371834247, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ARMXINWK7ELN7Y5CEV66VG3WQZTHPANCNFSM6AAAAAATRSLPC4. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
π @mhu48
I notice there are a number of unchecked boxes in your review checklists. Are these related to issues which the authors should fix? If so, could you please elaborate here or by opening issues in the source repository?
@osorensen Thanks for the reminder! Apparently I made a mistake when I did the checklist. It should be updated correctly now? Please let me know if there is any further actions needed at this step.
Thanks @mhu48, everything looks good now
@editorialbot check references
@editorialbot generate pdf
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1038/nature08227 is OK
- 10.1111/ele.12948 is OK
- 10.1098/rsif.2020.0482 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.2106140118 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0041010 is OK
- 10.1111/2041-210X.13058 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.15681 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-011 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-020-0772-5 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1605.08695 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@ThomasMBury, could you please replace the current pandas citation with those suggested here (preferably include both): https://pandas.pydata.org/about/citing.html
@ThomasMBury, once you have fixed the pandas reference issue above, could you please
I can then move forward with recommending acceptance of 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 check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1038/nature08227 is OK
- 10.1111/ele.12948 is OK
- 10.1098/rsif.2020.0482 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.2106140118 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0041010 is OK
- 10.1111/2041-210X.13058 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.15681 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-011 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-020-0772-5 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1605.08695 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e612900 may be a valid DOI for title: Keras
INVALID DOIs
- None
@editorialbot commands
Hello @ThomasMBury, 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
Hi @osorensen, thank you for serving as the editor for this paper. I've completed the tasks above.
The new version of the software is v2.1.1.
The DOI on Zenodo is 10.5281/zenodo.7630022.
Thanks.
Thanks @ThomasMBury
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7630022 as archive
Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7630022
@editorialbot set v2.1.1 as version
Done! version is now v2.1.1
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1038/nature08227 is OK
- 10.1111/ele.12948 is OK
- 10.1098/rsif.2020.0482 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.2106140118 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0041010 is OK
- 10.1111/2041-210X.13058 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.15681 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-011 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-020-0772-5 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1605.08695 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e612900 may be a valid DOI for title: Keras
INVALID DOIs
- None
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
I'm afraid I couldn't find a DOI for the Keras API - I hope this is ok. The bot didn't seem to mind the first time I submitted.
Ok, then I think it's fine.
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1038/nature08227 is OK
- 10.1111/ele.12948 is OK
- 10.1098/rsif.2020.0482 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.2106140118 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0041010 is OK
- 10.1111/2041-210X.13058 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.15681 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-011 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-020-0772-5 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1605.08695 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1163/1574-9347_dnp_e612900 may be a valid DOI for title: Keras
INVALID DOIs
- None
: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/3958, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept
π @ThomasMBury - I'm working on the next steps for this submission, and after proofreading it, I have some suggested changes, in https://github.com/ThomasMBury/ewstools/pull/433 Please merge this, or let me know what you disagree with, then we can continue the process.
Thanks for proofreading @danielskatz. I approve of the changes and have merged the pull request.
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1038/nature08227 is OK
- 10.1111/ele.12948 is OK
- 10.1098/rsif.2020.0482 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.2106140118 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0041010 is OK
- 10.1111/2041-210X.13058 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.15681 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-011 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-020-0772-5 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1605.08695 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1163/1574-9347_dnp_e612900 may be a valid DOI for title: Keras
INVALID DOIs
- None
: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/3959, 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
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@ThomasMBury<!--end-author-handle-- (Thomas M Bury) Repository: https://github.com/ThomasMBury/ewstools Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v2.1.1 Editor: !--editor-->@osorensen<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @mhu48, @mikesha2, @ranzhengcode Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7630022
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
@mhu48 & @mikesha2 & @ranzhengcode, 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 @mikesha2
π Checklist for @ranzhengcode
π Checklist for @mhu48