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 (739.9 files/s, 107020.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 32 779 1685 2822
C++ 14 183 537 1490
C/C++ Header 6 151 278 871
reStructuredText 17 404 565 705
YAML 3 0 3 494
TeX 1 16 0 151
Markdown 2 24 0 120
TOML 1 11 3 76
INI 1 5 0 47
PowerShell 1 1 0 4
SVG 1 0 0 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 79 1574 3071 6782
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1137/1.9780898719284 is OK
- 10.1137/S0097539793256673 is OK
- 10.1016/j.aml.2019.106159 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.0609228103 is OK
- 10.1016/0031-3203(95)00057-7 is OK
- 10.1137/060650301 is OK
- 10.1109/TASSP.1987.1165108 is OK
- 10.1137/S003614450343200X is OK
- 10.1137/18M120885X is OK
- 10.1137/17M1135633 is OK
- 10.1090/mcom/3750 is OK
- 10.7717/peerj.453 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSoC.2015.38 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
Wordcount for paper.md
is 586
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Thank you both for being willing to review. If you have any questions, please let us know; we'll be happy to answer.
Hi @zhangjy-ge, @fruzsinaagocs how is your review going?
Hi @diehlpk I am still in the procedure of reviewing it. Kind of busy this week but I should have some updates next week.
Hi @karlotness I have finished my preliminary review. I think it is a useful and well documented package based on my reading of your examples/tutorials/papers. However, I have some problems installing the software thus I cannot proceed to judge its functionality. I have submitted my errors in github issues.
Thanks, much appreciated. Thanks also for filing the issues. Hopefully we can work out what's going wrong there and get those fixed up.
Hi @diehlpk @karlotness I have finished my review. We have figured out that the installation issue is not from adrt so I have updated my checklist. I would say adrt is a well-designed package with sufficient endeavor and the manuscript itself is good for publication. Thanks for the opportunity to review the manuscript.
Glad to hear it. Thanks for helping check out those problems, and thanks again for your willingness to review!
@fruzsinaagocs how is your review going?
Hi @diehlpk, I just want to check a few more things (related to the scaling claims), and I'll be done. I think I can get it done by the end of the week, if that's OK.
@fruzsinaagocs sure, take your time, I just wanted to check how things are going.
Hi @diehlpk, @karlotness, I finished my preliminary review, and everything looks good. I submitted karlotness/adrt#4 which investigates the time complexity of ADRT, found that the complexity claim was true, with something mildly interesting happening at intermediate image sizes, which I think might be worth commenting on.
@karlotness Please address this issue and I will proceed with the editorial check.
@diehlpk, The issue has now been addressed (in short, @karlotness demonstrated that the interesting 'dip' in the complexity curve was driven by cache effects), I'm happy to accept the paper for publication. Thank you for asking me to review!
Thanks for taking a look and for being willing to review!
@editorialbot generate pdf
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1137/1.9780898719284 is OK
- 10.1137/S0097539793256673 is OK
- 10.1016/j.aml.2019.106159 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.0609228103 is OK
- 10.1016/0031-3203(95)00057-7 is OK
- 10.1137/060650301 is OK
- 10.1109/TASSP.1987.1165108 is OK
- 10.1137/S003614450343200X is OK
- 10.1137/18M120885X is OK
- 10.1137/17M1135633 is OK
- 10.1090/mcom/3750 is OK
- 10.7717/peerj.453 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSoC.2015.38 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:
@karlotness can you please add the city to the affiliations?
@karlotness Would it be much work to add your scaling plot from here (https://github.com/karlotness/adrt/issues/4) to the paper?
No problem, I think both of those should be incorporated in the updated copy on master
. I reformatted the plot just a bit
@editorialbot set master as branch
Done! branch is now master
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@karlotness If you reference the figure in the text and provided on which CPU you executed the code, I am happy to accept the paper.
Thanks, that's a good point. I've just added that to the figure caption.
The figure also should be referenced in the text, in the discussion of the time complexity of the ADRT.
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@karlotness Looks good now.
Should be set on both of those, I think.
I've added a new release version 1.0.1
with a Git tag of v1.0.1
I added the repository to Zenodo. The DOI for this version is 10.5281/zenodo.7738254 and the DOI for "all versions" there is 10.5281/zenodo.7738253
Thanks!
@editorialbot set v1.0.1 as version
Done! version is now v1.0.1
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7738254 as archive
Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7738254
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1137/1.9780898719284 is OK
- 10.1137/S0097539793256673 is OK
- 10.1016/j.aml.2019.106159 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.0609228103 is OK
- 10.1016/0031-3203(95)00057-7 is OK
- 10.1137/060650301 is OK
- 10.1109/TASSP.1987.1165108 is OK
- 10.1137/S003614450343200X is OK
- 10.1137/18M120885X is OK
- 10.1137/17M1135633 is OK
- 10.1090/mcom/3750 is OK
- 10.7717/peerj.453 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSoC.2015.38 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
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/4058, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept
π @karlotness - I'm the track editor who will handle the final processing for this submission. While proofreading it, I found a number of small issues, as indicated in https://github.com/karlotness/adrt/pull/5 - Please merge this, or let me know what you disagree with, then we can continue the process of acceptance and publication.
Thank you very much. Those all made sense, and should be merged now
@editorialbot accept
Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@karlotness<!--end-author-handle-- (Karl Otness) Repository: https://github.com/karlotness/adrt Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): master Version: v1.0.1 Editor: !--editor-->@diehlpk<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @zhangjy-ge, @fruzsinaagocs Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7738254
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
@zhangjy-ge & @fruzsinaagocs, 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 @diehlpk 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 @zhangjy-ge
π Checklist for @fruzsinaagocs