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=0.01 s (970.8 files/s, 46332.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Markdown 6 74 0 195
YAML 4 28 44 120
TeX 1 7 0 57
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 11 109 44 372
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 1096
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1007/978-3-662-62138-7_41 is OK
- 10.1109/IROS.2013.6696520 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1109/iros.2004.1389727 may be a valid DOI for title: Design and use paradigms for gazebo, an open-source multi-robot simulator
INVALID DOIs
- None
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@CameronDevine, @sea-bass This is the review thread for the paper. All of the communications will happen here from now on.
Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above. Please create your checklist typing:
@editorialbot generate my checklist
As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.
The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5174
so that a link is created to this thread (and @adi3 can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.
We aim for the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks but please make a start well ahead of this as JOSS reviews are by their nature iterative and any early feedback you may be able to provide to the author will be very helpful in meeting this schedule.
@CameronDevine @sea-bass - can we have an update on when you can kick-off your review of this submission? Thanks!
@CameronDevine @sea-bass - can we have an update on when you can kick-off your review of this submission? Thanks!
I planned to do mine this coming weekend, so it should be soon.
@adi3 I have spring break coming up next week, which should allow me plenty of time to complete the review.
Hello all, my review is complete.
Overall, the software is in very good shape and checks all the boxes. Only found some minor things, but getting set up with the tool was easy and the claims were verifiable.
The paper, on the other hand, is a bit short on references, but critically it abruptly stops after outlining many of their features (they could do a bit more on that front). So I think my biggest piece of feedback to the authors is to add a section showing examples/applications of their work in action, plus a conclusion summarizing their work and outlining future work.
See https://github.com/WBK-Robotics/pybullet_industrial/issues/40 for documentation review and https://github.com/WBK-Robotics/pybullet_industrial/issues/41 for software review. Once my comments are addressed, I'd be happy to take another quick look and help move this forward!
The findings from my review are summarized here:
matplotlib
but it isn't a dependency of the library (See https://github.com/WBK-Robotics/pybullet_industrial/issues/43)Once these issues are resolved I think this will make an excellent contribution to JOSS. Personally, this package would have been very useful to me while completing my PhD thesis.
Thank you very much for your reviews and the valuable feedback.
I have updated the code to reflect your suggestions, and thus removed the bugs from the examples and added docstrings explaining their usage. You can see this in the Issues you opened. I am currently working on incorporating your feedback into the paper and will share the new version with you shortly
Hey @CameronDevine , I have now included a conclusion to the paper along with changes @sea-bass requested. Let me know if this resolves your reservations about the paper.
@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 generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@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 generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@adi3 , the authors have gone through all my feedback and I am happy to approve this submission for publication!
For me, there is one last outstanding issue.
https://github.com/WBK-Robotics/pybullet_industrial/issues/42#issuecomment-1465760402
Once this is complete I will be more than happy to approve the submission.
All of the issues I have raised have now been addressed. I also approve this submission for publication.
Hey @adi3, Since all reviewers have approved the paper, i was wondering what the next steps are. Is there anything else I can do?
@CameronDevine @sea-bass thank you for completing your respective reviews. I appreciate your thoroughness!
@liquidcronos Looks like everything is set. Congratulations! I need one final formality to be done from your side. Please make a tagged release of the project and archive it. Then report the version number and archive DOI here. Once I have that, I will send this for publication. Cheers!
Hey @adi3, thank you very much!
I have drafted a new release with version v1.0.2 the corresponding doi is: 10.5281/zenodo.7833292
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7833292 as archive
Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7833292
@editorialbot set v1.0.2 as version
Done! version is now v1.0.2
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.48550/arXiv.2302.13442 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-662-62138-7_41 is OK
- 10.1109/IROS.2013.6696520 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1109/iros.2004.1389727 may be a valid DOI for title: Design and use paradigms for gazebo, an open-source multi-robot simulator
INVALID DOIs
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.10.032 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-664X(82)90169-1 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
:warning: Error preparing paper acceptance. The generated XML metadata file is invalid.
Element doi: [facet 'pattern'] The value 'https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.10.032' is not accepted by the pattern '10\.[0-9]{4,9}/.{1,200}'.
Element doi: [facet 'pattern'] The value 'https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-664X(82)90169-1' is not accepted by the pattern '10\.[0-9]{4,9}/.{1,200}'.
@liquidcronos please fix the Invalid and Missing DOIs as shown above
Hey @adi3,
I have added the missing DOI and formatted the remaining two to comply with the standards of the editorial bot
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Checking the BibTeX entries failed with the following error:
Failed to parse BibTeX on value "organization" (NAME) ["@", #<BibTeX::Entry >, {:title=>["Design and use paradigms for gazebo, an open-source multi-robot simulator"], :author=>["Koenig, Nathan and Howard, Andrew"], :booktitle=>["2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)(IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37566)"], :volume=>["3"], :pages=>["2149--2154"], :doi=>["10.1109/IROS.2004.1389727"]}]
:warning: Error preparing paper acceptance.
Hi @liquidcronos, I think the error in the BibTeX comes from a missing comma after the doi
field in the gazebo
entry.
Hey @kyleniemeyer , thanks for letting me know. It should be fixed now. The editorialbot didnt spot this error last time, is there some way i can call the bot directly in the future to avoid you and adi3 always having to check?
@liquidcronos The editorialbot
command check references
should catch some of these, as this is a step performed in the dry run of acceptance. However, some additional steps are only done at the very end.
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@liquidcronos<!--end-author-handle-- (Jan Baumgärtner) Repository: https://github.com/WBK-Robotics/pybullet_industrial Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper Version: v1.0.2 Editor: !--editor-->@adi3<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @CameronDevine, @sea-bass Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7833292
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
@CameronDevine & @sea-bass, 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 @adi3 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 @sea-bass
📝 Checklist for @CameronDevine