Closed editorialbot closed 12 months 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 (218.7 files/s, 72841.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TeX 1 26 0 547
Markdown 1 29 0 64
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 2 55 0 611
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 1068
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.48550/arXiv.2012.15797 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab290a is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stu2467 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f21 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/226 is OK
- 10.1086/340952 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw3039 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04475 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2111.08721 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03283 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz1796 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5908 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.6825092 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7697295 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00024 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7799772 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01143 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1007/978-1-4842-2677-3_5 may be a valid DOI for title: pytest
INVALID DOIs
- None
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Dear @AstroBarker and @JBorrow, thanks again for agreeing to review this submission, as well as for making me aware of your different expertise and time constraints. Please reach out to me if you bump into a roadblock -- I'd be happy to help!
All of my concerns have been addressed. I am happy to accept the paper. Congratulations @prappleizer on this wonderful work, and thank you for sharing it with the community.
Thank you for reviewing @JBorrow -- All great suggestions and comments for things the repo needed!
Thanks @JBorrow and @AstroBarker for your hard work, and @JBorrow for the recommendation. Your suggestions improve this package even further, and ensure it's community-ready. Much appreciated.
Sorry for the delay here -- all of my suggestions have been addressed and I am happy to accept as well. Great work.
Great news! Thanks @AstroBarker.
I will start reviewing the current manuscript now and then move to the pre-publication stage.
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.48550/arXiv.2012.15797 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab290a is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stu2467 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f21 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/226 is OK
- 10.1086/340952 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw3039 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04475 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2111.08721 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03283 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz1796 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5908 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.6825092 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7697295 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00024 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7799772 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01143 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1007/978-1-4842-2677-3_5 may be a valid DOI for title: pytest
INVALID DOIs
- None
@editorialbot generate pdf
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1007/978-1-4842-2677-3_5 may be a valid DOI for title: pytest
@prappleizer, could you take care of the missing DOI above?
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@eloisabentivegna DOI has been added!
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.48550/arXiv.2012.15797 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab290a is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stu2467 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f21 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/226 is OK
- 10.1086/340952 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw3039 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04475 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2111.08721 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03283 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz1796 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5908 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.6825092 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4842-2677-3_5 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7697295 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00024 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7799772 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01143 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:
I've just finished reading the paper (great work!) and suggested a tiny fix. Once that has been taken care of, we can start preparing the repo for publication, following the checklist below.
@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
@prappleizer, if you can take care of the first five tasks, I will complete the post-review phase and recommend acceptance.
Thanks! I'll try to get to these this evening.
Hi @prappleizer, the title I see on Zenodo is "pysersic v0.1.3". It should be identical to the one for this submission.
Done, thanks for the clarification.
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.8335352 as archive
Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.8335352
@editorialbot set version 0.1.3 as version
Done! version is now version 0.1.3
@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
- 10.48550/arXiv.2012.15797 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab290a is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stu2467 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f21 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/226 is OK
- 10.1086/340952 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw3039 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04475 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2111.08721 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03283 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz1796 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5908 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.6825092 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4842-2677-3_5 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7697295 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00024 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7799772 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01143 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
@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.2012.15797 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab290a is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stu2467 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f21 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/226 is OK
- 10.1086/340952 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw3039 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04475 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2111.08721 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03283 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz1796 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5908 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.6825092 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4842-2677-3_5 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7697295 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00024 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7799772 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01143 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
The paper's PDF and metadata files generation produced some warnings that could prevent the final paper from being published. Please fix them before the end of the review process.
^
unexpected control sequence \rm
expecting "%", "\\label", "\\tag", "\\nonumber" or whitespace
F_{\rm total}
^
unexpected control sequence \rm
expecting "%", "\\label", "\\tag", "\\nonumber" or whitespace
:wave: @openjournals/aass-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/4573, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept
I'm sorry @prappleizer, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only eics are allowed to do.
I am observing the pdf compilation error above, but the pdf in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/4573 seems fine.
Is this a problem, @openjournals/aass-eics?
Thanks all! I've opened a PR with some small typographical edits which should also fix the metadata issue above. Once merged, I'll proceed with acceptance.
PR has been accepted!
Thanks, @dfm. Also a big thanks to @AstroBarker and @JBorrow for sharing their comments on the submission. Your help is very appreciated!
Congratulations, @prappleizer!
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@prappleizer<!--end-author-handle-- (Imad Pasha) Repository: https://github.com/pysersic/pysersic Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper-joss Version: version 0.1.3 Editor: !--editor-->@eloisabentivegna<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @AstroBarker, @JBorrow Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8335352
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
@AstroBarker & @JBorrow, 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 @eloisabentivegna 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 @AstroBarker
📝 Checklist for @JBorrow