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=0.27 s (305.9 files/s, 80737.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 30 2061 3953 3451
Markdown 35 294 0 1467
Jupyter Notebook 7 0 9248 965
YAML 9 49 46 351
TeX 1 17 1 158
TOML 1 10 4 87
CSS 1 3 2 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 84 2434 13254 6483
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 915
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0039127 is OK
- 10.1016/j.yebeh.2009.02.035 is OK
- 10.3389/fnsys.2011.00059 is OK
- 10.3389/fncel.2021.649262 is OK
- 10.5014/ajot.61.2.176 is OK
- 10.3758/BF03196680 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1177/155005941104200412 is OK
- 10.3389/fnins.2013.00267 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01272 is OK
- 10.1155/2011/156869 is OK
- 10.1155/2011/879716 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:
Hi @szorowi1, @AJQuinn thanks for agreeing to review. This is our review thread. Please generate your checklist with the above command seen in the top post, and raise any issues about the software in the issues tab of the repository directly, linking back to here, Any wider issues you'd like to discuss please flag here of course, and let me know if there's anything I can help with. Thanks again!
Hi @szorowi1, @AJQuinn how are things going? Please let me know if I can help with anything.
Hi @samhforbes, thanks for the follow-up! I believe my review is complete.
OpenSeize
looks like a great package! I was able to successfully reproduce the outputs of the tutorials, and the documentation is excellent. I opened a minor PR in the parent repo to fix one bug. Otherwise, it all looks great to me!
Thanks @szorowi1 !
Many thanks @szorowi1 for the fast review and the PR to fix the link in the documentation!
Hi @AJQuinn I can see there are some things you haven't completed on the checklist. Are there any issues that need to be raised / addressed?
Hi @samhforbes - apologies for the delay. No substantial issues, I've been testing the package for a bit and just submitted my review issue with a handful of suggested documentation changes.
Very impressed overall, expect to complete the review soon.
My comments have been well addressed and I'm happy to sign off my review. This is a useful, well constructed and throughly documented package that I'm glad to recommend to JOSS.
Hi @samhforbes Not sure if you were pinged on the last comment but it looks like the reviews of Openseize are complete.
Best Matt
Thanks @mscaudill. This is exciting and is looking good. I can see the reviewers are happy and I have also had a look and am really pleased with how everything works.
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0039127 is OK
- 10.1016/j.yebeh.2009.02.035 is OK
- 10.3389/fnsys.2011.00059 is OK
- 10.3389/fncel.2021.649262 is OK
- 10.5014/ajot.61.2.176 is OK
- 10.3758/BF03196680 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1177/155005941104200412 is OK
- 10.3389/fnins.2013.00267 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01272 is OK
- 10.1155/2011/156869 is OK
- 10.1155/2011/879716 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
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:
@mscaudill can you please check the version number is accurate, confirm the author list, and then archive it somewhere with a stable DOI (Zenodo, or figshare for example) - making sure the authors and title match that of the paper. Then could you please post the DOI here.
@editorialbot set <DOI here> as archive
@editorialbot set <version here> as version
@editorialbot generate pdf
@editorialbot check references
and ask author(s) to update as needed@editorialbot recommend-accept
Hi @samhforbes
I've created a current release of the software and archived it to Zenodo. I also confirmed the authors, the ORCIDs, and the license are correct and match between the paper and the archive.
The release version is v1.1.0-joss
The Zenodo DOI is 10.5281/zenodo.7760375 Please note: this is the DOI that cites all versions of the software and resolves to the latest version. If you need the DOI specific to the v1.1.0-joss release, that DOI is 10.5281/zenodo.7760376
Best Matt
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7760376 as archive
Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7760376
@editorialbot set version as v1.1.0-joss
I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:
@editorialbot commands
@editorialbot set v1.1.0-joss as version
Done! version is now v1.1.0-joss
Hi @mscaudill this is all looking great and I'm excited by the potential of this software. I'm going to recommend acceptance and hand over to the EiC. Congrats on some great work!
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0039127 is OK
- 10.1016/j.yebeh.2009.02.035 is OK
- 10.3389/fnsys.2011.00059 is OK
- 10.3389/fncel.2021.649262 is OK
- 10.5014/ajot.61.2.176 is OK
- 10.3758/BF03196680 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1177/155005941104200412 is OK
- 10.3389/fnins.2013.00267 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01272 is OK
- 10.1155/2011/156869 is OK
- 10.1155/2011/879716 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
:wave: @openjournals/bcm-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/4073, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept
@editorialbot accept
I'm sorry @mscaudill, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only eics are allowed to do.
Hi @openjournals/bcm-eics
The proof of the paper looks great. Thank you!
Hi @samhforbes
I apologize for reaching back out to you since you turned Openseize over to the bcm-eic but I haven't heard anything from them in over a week and I wanted to make sure that I haven't been forgotten.
Thanks Matt
Hi @mscaudill I'm sure it hasn't been lost -- that said I note that the teams feature might be ending which means the notification might not have gone through. @openjournals/bcm-eics @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman just tagging you in in case the GitHub teams have already been deprecated unbeknownst to editorialbot.
@samhforbes @mscaudill apologies for the delay in processing the final steps. I will work on this now.
@mscaudill I have just one minor comment:
@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 accept
Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...
@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Thank you for catching this. I've updated the affiliations and generated the PDF in this discussion thread as well as the repository.
- [x] In your affiliations, please spell out USA as Unites States of America
Best Matt
Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.
If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.
You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:
``` cff-version: "1.2.0" authors: - family-names: Caudill given-names: Matthew S. orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3656-9261" doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7760376 message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the Journal of Open Source Software. preferred-citation: authors: - family-names: Caudill given-names: Matthew S. orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3656-9261" date-published: 2023-04-05 doi: 10.21105/joss.05126 issn: 2475-9066 issue: 84 journal: Journal of Open Source Software publisher: name: Open Journals start: 5126 title: "Openseize: A digital signal processing package for large EEG datasets in Python" type: article url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05126" volume: 8 title: "Openseize: A digital signal processing package for large EEG datasets in Python" ```
If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.
π¦π¦π¦ π Tweet for this paper π π¦π¦π¦
πππ π Toot for this paper π πππ
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@mscaudill<!--end-author-handle-- (Matthew Caudill) Repository: https://github.com/mscaudill/openseize Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.1.0-joss Editor: !--editor-->@samhforbes<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @szorowi1, @AJQuinn Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7760376
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
@szorowi1 & @AJQuinn, 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 @samhforbes 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 @AJQuinn
π Checklist for @szorowi1