Closed editorialbot closed 1 year ago
Hello human, 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=0.05 s (1038.8 files/s, 193974.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 28 620 1201 1489
Jupyter Notebook 3 0 4202 399
Markdown 5 97 0 247
reStructuredText 8 364 935 138
YAML 6 29 47 126
TeX 1 13 0 119
DOS Batch 1 8 1 26
make 1 4 7 9
INI 1 0 0 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 54 1135 6393 2555
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 477
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/j.aca.2018.04.004 is OK
- 10.1038/s41597-023-02189-w is OK
- 10.3389/fpls.2022.836488 is OK
- 10.1255/jnirs.716 is OK
- 10.3389/fchem.2018.00576 is OK
- 10.1007/BFb0062108 is OK
- 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2008.01.001 is OK
- 10.3390/s22249764 is OK
- 10.1016/j.vibspec.2019.103009 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1111/pce.13718 may be a valid DOI for title: Estimating photosynthetic traits from reflectance spectra: A synthesis of spectral indices, numerical inversion, and partial least square regression
INVALID DOIs
- None
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@GBeurier thanks for this submission. I am the AEiC on this track and here to help with initial steps. For the moment, below are some points that require your attention:
@editorialbot check references
, to check them again, and use @editorialbot generate pdf
to update the paper draft. NIRS
acronym in the text. .Although
@editorialbot invite @lucydot as editor
Invitation to edit this submission sent!
@editorialbot assign me as editor
Assigned! @lucydot is now the editor
Hi @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman @GBeurier - happy to edit this submission. Though please note I am at a conference for the next week; I will resume editing duties w/c 10th July. In the meantime @GBeurier please see notes above from @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman ☝️ , and please suggest potential reviewers (more details on this are also above, in the first post).
Hi @lucydot, thank you for reviewing pinard. I have done the requested modifications and I suggest the following reviewers:
@editorialbot check references
@editorialbot generate pdf
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/j.aca.2018.04.004 is OK
- 10.1038/s41597-023-02189-w is OK
- 10.3389/fpls.2022.836488 is OK
- 10.1255/jnirs.716 is OK
- 10.3389/fchem.2018.00576 is OK
- 10.1007/BFb0062108 is OK
- 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2008.01.001 is OK
- 10.3390/s22249764 is OK
- 10.1016/j.vibspec.2019.103009 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.13718 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/j.aca.2018.04.004 is OK
- 10.1038/s41597-023-02189-w is OK
- 10.3389/fpls.2022.836488 is OK
- 10.1255/jnirs.716 is OK
- 10.3389/fchem.2018.00576 is OK
- 10.1007/BFb0062108 is OK
- 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2008.01.001 is OK
- 10.3390/s22249764 is OK
- 10.1016/j.vibspec.2019.103009 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.13718 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/j.aca.2018.04.004 is OK
- 10.1038/s41597-023-02189-w is OK
- 10.3389/fpls.2022.836488 is OK
- 10.1255/jnirs.716 is OK
- 10.3389/fchem.2018.00576 is OK
- 10.1111/pce.13718 is OK
- 10.1007/BFb0062108 is OK
- 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2008.01.001 is OK
- 10.3390/s22249764 is OK
- 10.1016/j.vibspec.2019.103009 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
Thanks @GBeurier,
@ayoubft, @ksunden - are you available to review this submission to JOSS?
@ayoubft I believe you are a new reviewers to JOSS, so welcome! Our process is a little different to more traditional journals, being Github-based and completely transparent. If you have any questions, please ask! There are some more details at the docs here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html
Hey, Thanks @lucydot for the welcome; very excited to review for joss. I will start by reading the docs.
@editorialbot commands
Hello @ayoubft, here are the things you can ask me to do:
# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands
# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors
# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references
# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository
# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist
# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch
# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf
# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint
# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers
Hi, Thank you for accepting the reviews. I will be on vacation until August 6th.
Thanks for letting us know @GBeurier, noted!
And excellent @ayoubft, pleased to have you on board 🚋
@jwuttke @untzag - are you available to review this submission to JOSS?
Hello,
Just to let you know that I am on Annual Leave until the 8th of July. The invite still stands @jwuttke @untzag; if either (or both!) of you are able to accept the invite I will get the review going.
I will review, thanks @lucydot @GBeurier
That is great - thank you @untzag
@editorialbot add @ayoubft as reviewer
@ayoubft added to the reviewers list!
@editorialbot add @untzag as reviewer
@untzag added to the reviewers list!
Excellent @GBeurier @untzag @ayoubft we are onto the next stage!
I have added reviewers and will now ask editorial-bot to generate a new review thread - this is where the review will be conducted. You will receive a github notification for this, and there are instructions generated at the top. The first reviewer task will be to generate the review checklist. Any questions, please ask on the new thread.
@editorialbot start review
OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5747.
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@gbeurier<!--end-author-handle-- (Grégory Beurier) Repository: https://github.com/GBeurier/pinard Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: 1.0.1 Editor: !--editor-->@lucydot<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @ayoubft, @untzag Managing EiC: Kevin M. Moerman
Status
Status badge code:
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @gbeurier. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
@gbeurier if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.
Editor instructions
The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type: