Closed editorialbot closed 1 year ago
editorialbot
commented
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 commandsFor example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
@editorialbot generate pdfSoftware report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.02 s (501.2 files/s, 81146.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 2 190 121 947
TeX 1 15 0 210
Markdown 5 73 0 161
YAML 3 6 5 53
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 11 284 126 1371
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repositoryWordcount for paper.md is 1144
editorialbot
commented
1 year ago Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.21105/joss.01825 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02328 is OK
- 10.1242/jeb.224196 is OK
- 10.3354/meps13638 is OK
- 10.3354/meps13814 is OK
- 10.3389/fmars.2021.749943 is OK
- 10.1002/rse2.258 is OK
- 10.1111/2041-210X.13962 is OK
- 10.1093/iob/obac038 is OK
- 10.3389/fmars.2022.1036860 is OK
- 10.1038/s41559-023-01993-2 is OK
- 10.1098/rsos.230452 is OK
- 10.1098/rsos.220724 is OK
- 10.1242/jeb.243224 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.3389/fmars.2022.867258 may be a valid DOI for title: Range-Wide Comparison of Gray Whale Body Condition Reveals Contrasting Sub-Population Health Characteristics and Vulnerability to Environmental Change
INVALID DOIs
- None:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
commented
1 year ago @ZappyMan, thanks for this submission. I am the AEiC for this track and here to help process initial steps.
Since you are seeking a "new version paper" (former version was published in JOSS and was reviewed here: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/1825) could you please provide a list of all the major changes since that version? It would help if you could leave a detailed post here highlighting the developments since that published version. You can include links to issues addressed and/or links to new docs/files/code where appropriate. The more evidence you can provide, that the changes made are significant enough to justify a new JOSS paper, the better. Thanks.
ZappyMan
commented
1 year ago @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman thanks for the quick response. Below is a comprehensive list of major changes since version 1:
Features
Stability
Contributors Lastly, a major change to MorphoMetriX from the published v1, is the team. I have taken over leadership of development from wingtorres as I led all the software updates for v2 and now manage the repository and will handle issues moving forwards. Cbirdferrer has also been added as a contributor.
Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
commented
1 year ago @ZappyMan thanks for that information. I will now consult the editorial board on this and we will get back to you with a verdict.
Notes to editors:
This authors seek the review/publication of a new version of their software. Their previous version was reviewed/accepted, see: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/1825
It looks like the authors forked the old version which has the following cloc output:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 2 156 153 741
TeX 1 23 0 226
Markdown 5 105 0 196
YAML 2 5 1 34
CSV 1 0 0 16
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 11 289 154 1213
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------One of the authors @ZappyMan has provided a list of changes since this published version :point_up:
The new version has the following cloc output:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.02 s (501.2 files/s, 81146.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 2 190 121 947
TeX 1 15 0 210
Markdown 5 73 0 161
YAML 3 6 5 53
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 11 284 126 1371As such only ~200 LOC were added (keeping in mind that LOC added do not tell a complete story of course, i.e. line deletion/code simplification/shortening can be very important).
From the above comments from the author, it looks like most changes relate to improvements to the look/performance/easy-of-use of the GUI, or treat minor bugs. It looks to me like only the following point addresses a "scientific functionality" change/improvement
- Implemented side-bias functionality for width measuring when visibility is poor. This new feature helps increase the number of measurable images that would otherwise be excluded, thus improving the sample sizes for analyses
@ZappyMan, if you feel I've misrepresented your summary, feel free to elaborate on more changes that relate to scientific functionality/outcomes.
Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
commented
1 year ago @editorialbot query scope
editorialbot
commented
1 year ago Submission flagged for editorial review.
Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
commented
1 year ago @ZappyMan the editorial board has studied you submission, and the differences with the previously published version. Unfortunately the changes made to this new version are not seen here as sufficient to justify a new JOSS paper. The key thing we would look for in this case is significant changes of the scientific functionality/performance.
We will now proceed to reject this submission. Note though that this conclusion does not mean this work (and the enhancements made) are of a poor quality or not useful, it merely means that the enhancements proposed are not deemed significant enough to warrant a new paper.
Note we would welcome any future (re)submissions that are of a more substantial nature.
Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
commented
1 year ago @editorialbot reject
editorialbot
commented
1 year ago Paper rejected.
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@ZappyMan<!--end-author-handle-- (Elliott Chimienti) Repository: https://github.com/ZappyMan/MorphoMetriX Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): master Version: v.2.0.0 Editor: Pending Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Kevin M. Moerman
Status
Status badge code:
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @ZappyMan. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
@ZappyMan 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: