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=0.13 s (596.5 files/s, 114627.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 61 2956 2075 7831
Markdown 12 223 0 823
Jupyter Notebook 1 0 450 531
TeX 1 16 0 162
YAML 3 16 13 82
TOML 1 0 0 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 79 3211 2538 9432
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 1213
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1007/978-1-4020-4399-4 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-27486-3_36-1 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2021-3095 is OK
- 10.1007/s00500-017-2965-0 is OK
- 10.1017/9781108348973 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2302.08436 is OK
- 10.1109/access.2020.2990567 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ast.2019.03.041 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2022-3899 is OK
- 10.1115/detc2021-71399 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2021-3078 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 @jbussemaker, I tried to step through the tutorial notebook here and ran into two issues. Details can be found in https://github.com/jbussemaker/SBArchOpt/issues/1 and https://github.com/jbussemaker/SBArchOpt/issues/2.
@athulpg007 thank you for catching these problems. I have corrected them, in addition to adding unit tests to also test the tutorial notebooks.
I also corrected another small mistake I made with one of the dependencies I use: if you're starting from a previously-prepared Python environment, ensure you have numba installed: pip install numba
Thank you for your time reviewing the library!
@athulpg007 thanks for the review details!
Let me share one comment. Please, next time try opening one (or more) issue(s) to the reviewing repository with the details and mention the issue link in the tread. This will keep review more organized and focused. Thanks again!
@jbussemaker please take a look: https://github.com/jbussemaker/SBArchOpt/issues/4, https://github.com/jbussemaker/SBArchOpt/issues/5, https://github.com/jbussemaker/SBArchOpt/issues/6.
Hi @jbussemaker, thank you for addressing my comments. I have completed my review and am happy to accept this paper.
A few minor suggestions:
Thank you for this valuable contribution to the field of systems architecture optimization.
@athulpg007 I have updated the latest PyPI release and removed the line in the paper
Thank you too for your valuable feedback!
@SichengHe there have been quite some improvements to the code since athulpg007 provided feedback. I kindly request you to update your checklist. Feel free to contact me (through an issue in the repo) if there are any further questions.
@vissarion
@SichengHe could you please update us on the progress of your review?
@jbussemaker @vissarion Sorry for the late response. I will finish tomorrow BEOD.
Sorry for the late response @vissarion . The edited version passed all the tests. Thanks for putting effort into this @jbussemaker !
And thank you for your review :)
When a submission is ready to be accepted, we ask that the authors issue a new tagged release of the software (if changed), and archive it (see this guide).
@jbussemaker Please do this and post the version number and archive DOI here.
@vissarion thank you. The release is v1.2.0 and is archived at 10.5281/zenodo.8318765
Thanks @jbussemaker, please change the title and author list of the zenodo archive to match the title of your JOSS paper.
@vissarion done 👍
@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 set 10.5281/zenodo.8318765 as archive
Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.8318765
@editorialbot set v1.2.0 as version
Done! version is now v1.2.0
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1007/978-1-4020-4399-4 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-27486-3_36-1 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2021-3095 is OK
- 10.1007/s00500-017-2965-0 is OK
- 10.1017/9781108348973 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2302.08436 is OK
- 10.1109/access.2020.2990567 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ast.2019.03.041 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2022-3899 is OK
- 10.1115/detc2021-71399 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2021-3078 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1002/iis2.13020 may be a valid DOI for title: Function-Based Architecture Optimization: An Application to Hybrid-Electric Propulsion Systems
- 10.1002/iis2.12935 may be a valid DOI for title: From System Architecting to System Design and Optimization: A Link Between MBSE and MDAO
INVALID DOIs
- None
@editorialbot generate pdf
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification): OK DOIs - 10.1007/978-1-4020-4399-4 is OK - 10.1007/978-3-030-27486-3_36-1 is OK - 10.2514/6.2021-3095 is OK - 10.1007/s00500-017-2965-0 is OK - 10.1017/9781108348973 is OK - 10.48550/ARXIV.2302.08436 is OK - 10.1109/access.2020.2990567 is OK - 10.1016/j.ast.2019.03.041 is OK - 10.2514/6.2022-3899 is OK - 10.1115/detc2021-71399 is OK - 10.2514/6.2021-3078 is OK MISSING DOIs - 10.1002/iis2.13020 may be a valid DOI for title: Function-Based Architecture Optimization: An Application to Hybrid-Electric Propulsion Systems - 10.1002/iis2.12935 may be a valid DOI for title: From System Architecting to System Design and Optimization: A Link Between MBSE and MDAO INVALID DOIs - None
I have added the DOIs. Somehow they didn't work previously...
: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
- 10.1007/978-1-4020-4399-4 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-27486-3_36-1 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2021-3095 is OK
- 10.1007/s00500-017-2965-0 is OK
- 10.1017/9781108348973 is OK
- 10.1002/iis2.13020 is OK
- 10.1002/iis2.12935 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2302.08436 is OK
- 10.1109/access.2020.2990567 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ast.2019.03.041 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2022-3899 is OK
- 10.1115/detc2021-71399 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2021-3078 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1007/978-1-4020-4399-4 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-27486-3_36-1 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2021-3095 is OK
- 10.1007/s00500-017-2965-0 is OK
- 10.1017/9781108348973 is OK
- 10.1002/iis2.13020 is OK
- 10.1002/iis2.12935 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2302.08436 is OK
- 10.1109/access.2020.2990567 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ast.2019.03.041 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2022-3899 is OK
- 10.1115/detc2021-71399 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2021-3078 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
@jbussemaker thanks! I have opened an issue with few comments regarding references.
@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:
@jbussemaker thanks for all the efforts and for writing this useful paper! @athulpg007, @SichengHe thanks for the constructive reviews!
I will know ping the Track Editor in Chief for final processing.
@editorialbot recommend-accept
@vissarion thank you very much for the coordination! @athulpg007 @SichengHe thank you for your time reviewing the paper and software!
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1007/978-1-4020-4399-4 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-27486-3_36-1 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2021-3095 is OK
- 10.1007/s00500-017-2965-0 is OK
- 10.1017/9781108348973 is OK
- 10.1002/iis2.13020 is OK
- 10.1002/iis2.12935 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2302.08436 is OK
- 10.1613/jair.1.13643 is OK
- 10.1109/access.2020.2990567 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ast.2019.03.041 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2022-3899 is OK
- 10.1115/detc2021-71399 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2021-3078 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/4532, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept
@jbussemaker - as the track chair, I'll now proofread the draft and let you know the next steps
I have a bunch of suggested changes, as indicated in https://github.com/jbussemaker/SBArchOpt/pull/8 - please merge this, or let me know what you disagree with, then we can proceed.
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@jbussemaker<!--end-author-handle-- (Jasper Bussemaker) Repository: https://github.com/jbussemaker/SBArchOpt Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-paper Version: v1.2.0 Editor: !--editor-->@vissarion<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @athulpg007, @SichengHe Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8318765
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
@athulpg007 & @SichengHe, 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 @vissarion 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 @athulpg007
📝 Checklist for @SichengHe