Closed editorialbot closed 10 months ago
@gmrandazzo - Thank you for adding the new subsection now it is more clear to readers.
Please take a look at the comment and the PR:
https://github.com/gmrandazzo/libscientific/pull/10/files#r1318146613
It seems my corrections are not applied for a reason, so please apply the corrections manually:
The sentece. (Author, year; ...)
Thank you in advance.
@gmrandazzo - could you please update your status? thank you in advance
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@gmrandazzo- It looks better now. Thank you. By the way, there are still some issues which should be fixed:
Thank you in advance.
@gmrandazzo - Do you need help? Could you please consider applying the suggestions below?
@gmrandazzo - Could you please update your status?
Hi @jbytecode I will try to finish everything by the end of this week. Sorry.. busy time :) Tnx
@gmrandazzo - could you please update your status? would you like me to set the status of this submission as paused?
Hello @jbytecode done.
All the points were addressed. (latex directives in a citation, figure in 2 pages now is in one page, full read and ping to you now) For your knowledge, I have added some new text in the 'algorithm stability' and 'speed and memory comparison' with a new reference to justify some sentences that were not happy to me.
Back to you.
Thanks
@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
- 10.1016/0003-2670(86)80028-9 is OK
- 10.1002/cem.1180010107 is OK
- 10.1002/(SICI)1099-128X(199809/10)12:5<301::AID-CEM515>3.0.CO;2-S is OK
- 10.1088/0957-0233/12/10/708 is OK
- 10.1002/9781119013563 is OK
- 10.1109/CVPR.2005.309 is OK
- 10.1002/qsar.19960150402 is OK
- 10.1177/108705719600100308 is OK
- 10.1016/j.aca.2016.02.014 is OK
- 10.1016/j.chemolab.2016.11.010 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jchromb.2017.04.032 is OK
- 10.1016/j.chroma.2019.460661 is OK
- 10.1126/sciadv.abf2665 is OK
- 10.3389/fcimb.2022.897291 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- https://doi.org/10.1002/cem.1180010105 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
@gmrandazzo - Here we go again! Please correct the typo and other things. Please update your bibliography as our editorialbot suggests.
I hope we are not in an infinite loop.
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/0003-2670(86)80028-9 is OK
- 10.1002/cem.1180010107 is OK
- 10.1002/(SICI)1099-128X(199809/10)12:5<301::AID-CEM515>3.0.CO;2-S is OK
- 10.1088/0957-0233/12/10/708 is OK
- 10.1002/9781119013563 is OK
- 10.1109/CVPR.2005.309 is OK
- 10.1002/qsar.19960150402 is OK
- 10.1177/108705719600100308 is OK
- 10.1016/j.aca.2016.02.014 is OK
- 10.1016/j.chemolab.2016.11.010 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jchromb.2017.04.032 is OK
- 10.1016/j.chroma.2019.460661 is OK
- 10.1126/sciadv.abf2665 is OK
- 10.3389/fcimb.2022.897291 is OK
- 10.1002/cem.1180010105 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:
@jbytecode many thanks! Apologies for the last-minute add. I know that is not correct. However, those sentences could have been more cool after rereading them, and I was unhappy with them. Now, they are more solid and well-justified.
Then, I have fixed everything again. This will not be an infinite loop. :)
@gmrandazzo - Thank you, seems better now.
Could you please perform the tasks given in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5420#issuecomment-1701232046
Thank you in advance.
here is the zenodo DOI link: https://10.5281/zenodo.8436823
@editorialbot set v1.6.0 as version
Done! version is now v1.6.0
In archive https://zenodo.org/record/8436823, the title of paper and the title of archive should match. Please correct.
Hi @jbytecode I'm still waiting to update the information on Zenodo. However is down since today morning. I will fix the title one everything will be back again. Thank you
@gmrandazzo - It seems the site is active now
@jbytecode unfortunatelly not... https://stats.uptimerobot.com/vlYOVuWgM/ :( When I click to modify the text of the abstract i receive the following message:
The server encountered an internal error and was unable to complete your request. Either the server is overloaded or there is an error in the application.
it is broken since friday...
@jbytecode done. Title changed.
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.8436823 as archive
Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.8436823
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/0003-2670(86)80028-9 is OK
- 10.1002/cem.1180010107 is OK
- 10.1002/(SICI)1099-128X(199809/10)12:5<301::AID-CEM515>3.0.CO;2-S is OK
- 10.1088/0957-0233/12/10/708 is OK
- 10.1002/9781119013563 is OK
- 10.1109/CVPR.2005.309 is OK
- 10.1002/qsar.19960150402 is OK
- 10.1177/108705719600100308 is OK
- 10.1016/j.aca.2016.02.014 is OK
- 10.1016/j.chemolab.2016.11.010 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jchromb.2017.04.032 is OK
- 10.1016/j.chroma.2019.460661 is OK
- 10.1126/sciadv.abf2665 is OK
- 10.3389/fcimb.2022.897291 is OK
- 10.1002/cem.1180010105 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:
@gmrandazzo - The PR includes minor changes on manuscript text and citation notation PR. Please review and merge.
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/0003-2670(86)80028-9 is OK
- 10.1002/cem.1180010107 is OK
- 10.1002/(SICI)1099-128X(199809/10)12:5<301::AID-CEM515>3.0.CO;2-S is OK
- 10.1088/0957-0233/12/10/708 is OK
- 10.1002/9781119013563 is OK
- 10.1109/CVPR.2005.309 is OK
- 10.1002/qsar.19960150402 is OK
- 10.1177/108705719600100308 is OK
- 10.1016/j.aca.2016.02.014 is OK
- 10.1016/j.chemolab.2016.11.010 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jchromb.2017.04.032 is OK
- 10.1016/j.chroma.2019.460661 is OK
- 10.1126/sciadv.abf2665 is OK
- 10.3389/fcimb.2022.897291 is OK
- 10.1002/cem.1180010105 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:
@gmrandazzo - Both the manuscript and the bibtex look good to me. I am now recommending an acceptance. Our track editor will make the final decision. Thank you for submitting your work to JOSS.
@mikeaalv, @faosorios - Also thank to you for reviewing this submission for JOSS.
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/0003-2670(86)80028-9 is OK
- 10.1002/cem.1180010107 is OK
- 10.1002/(SICI)1099-128X(199809/10)12:5<301::AID-CEM515>3.0.CO;2-S is OK
- 10.1088/0957-0233/12/10/708 is OK
- 10.1002/9781119013563 is OK
- 10.1109/CVPR.2005.309 is OK
- 10.1002/qsar.19960150402 is OK
- 10.1177/108705719600100308 is OK
- 10.1016/j.aca.2016.02.014 is OK
- 10.1016/j.chemolab.2016.11.010 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jchromb.2017.04.032 is OK
- 10.1016/j.chroma.2019.460661 is OK
- 10.1126/sciadv.abf2665 is OK
- 10.3389/fcimb.2022.897291 is OK
- 10.1002/cem.1180010105 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
:wave: @openjournals/dsais-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/4710, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept
@gmrandazzo – I found a couple of minor typos. Could you merge this PR and I'll be able to proceed from here: https://github.com/gmrandazzo/libscientific/pull/15
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@gmrandazzo<!--end-author-handle-- (Giuseppe Marco Randazzo) Repository: https://github.com/gmrandazzo/libscientific Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.6.0 Editor: !--editor-->@jbytecode<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @mikeaalv, @faosorios Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8436823
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
@mikeaalv & @faosorios, 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 @jbytecode 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 @mikeaalv
📝 Checklist for @faosorios