Closed editorialbot closed 8 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=0.05 s (806.5 files/s, 135174.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JSON 4 0 0 2680
Python 13 288 371 917
CMake 4 142 50 853
YAML 7 54 26 287
Markdown 3 45 0 161
C++ 1 18 9 148
TeX 1 2 0 133
Jupyter Notebook 4 0 820 126
C/C++ Header 3 22 30 77
TOML 1 9 21 65
reStructuredText 3 5 13 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 44 585 1340 5450
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 816
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/j.advwatres.2016.12.006 is OK
- 10.1137/s1064827592240555 is OK
- 10.1137/17m1149730 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2021.3083216 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2020.06.007 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.2565368 is OK
- 10.2307/1390903 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:
@editorialbot remind @max-little in 2 weeks
Reminder set for @max-little in 2 weeks
@editorialbot remind @shahmoradi in 2 weeks
Reminder set for @shahmoradi in 2 weeks
:wave: @max-little, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
:wave: @shahmoradi, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
@editorialbot remind @max-little in 1 weeks
Reminder set for @max-little in 1 weeks
@editorialbot remind @shahmoradi in 1 weeks
Reminder set for @shahmoradi in 1 weeks
:wave: @max-little, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
:wave: @shahmoradi, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
Hi @max-little and @shahmoradi how is your review going?
Hi @max-little and @shahmoradi how is your review going?
Hi @max-little are you still available for the review?
Hi @shahmoradi are you still available for the review?
Hi @max-little I have not heard from you for a while, I will remove you as a reviewer and will add you again once I hear from you.
@editorialbot remove @max-little as reviewer
@max-little removed from the reviewers list!
Hi @shahmoradi I have not heard from you for a while, I will remove you as a reviewer and will add you again once I hear from you.
@editorialbot @shahmoradi as reviewer
I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:
@editorialbot commands
@editorialbot remove @shahmoradi as reviewer
@shahmoradi removed from the reviewers list!
Hi @dokempf it seems both reviewers disappeared. I will look for new once today. Do you have any recommendations?
Hi @OsAmaro do you have the time review this paper?
Hi @y-yao do you have time to review this paper?
Hi @GregoryAshton do you have time to review this paper?
Sorry for missing this assignment. I have been assigned multiple JOSS review tasks, making it super-confusing to determine what is complete and what needs completion with all other daily life events. I realize my name was removed as a reviewer. Nevertheless, since I made the promise once, I'd happily help with the review if needed over the weekend.
@shahmoradi I am happy to add you again.
@editorialbot add @shahmoradi as reviewer
@shahmoradi added to the reviewers list!
Hi @y-yao do you have time to review this paper?
I will pass this time as this is outside of my area of expertise. Thanks for the invite.
Hi @GregoryAshton do you have time to review this paper?
Hi @diehlpk I'm sorry but mid-semester teaching is too much at the moment to take on extra review. My apologies.
Thank you for your efforts to create this library. I am sure the Python community will find this package helpful. Everything about this project and JOSS submission looks good, except the following comments I have for the authors:
Hi @OsAmaro do you have the time review this paper?
Hi. Unfortunately, this topic is a bit outside of my area of expertise. I'll have to pass this time. Thanks for the invite anyways
Thank you for your efforts to create this library. I am sure the Python community will find this package helpful. Everything about this project and JOSS submission looks good, except the following comments I have for the authors:
1. The **installation** page should likely go before the **usage** page in the documentation website. 2. Adding a complete MPI-parallel example in the documentation would be helpful. 3. Instructions for running the unit tests (serial/parallel) would be very helpful (I am sure many, like me, do not know or remember how to run tests off the top of their heads). 4. A similar argument, but less severely, applies to docs generation. The instructions are particularly important and vital for future contributors. 5. Can the authors check if "Community guidelines: 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support" exist in the repository and if so, point me to those docs? 6. Are there any alternative options available in the literature that the authors could cite in "State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?"
@dokempf please take a look at these comments.
@shahmoradi Thanks a lot for your comments, much appreciated.
1. The **installation** page should likely go before the **usage** page in the documentation website.
Done in main
.
2. Adding a complete MPI-parallel example in the documentation would be helpful.
I have moved the MPI documentation from a Jupyter notebook (that cannot really be run in parallel) to the Sphinx documentation. Added additional bit especially about the differences between sequential and parallel use (same API, different shapes of the results of evaluate
)
3. Instructions for running the unit tests (serial/parallel) would be very helpful (I am sure many, like me, do not know or remember how to run tests off the top of their heads).
Done in main
.
4. A similar argument, but less severely, applies to docs generation. The instructions are particularly important and vital for future contributors.
Done in main
.
5. Can the authors check if "Community guidelines: 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support" exist in the repository and if so, point me to those docs?
Done in main
. They are in the README which is also used to render the introduction section of the Readthedocs page.
6. Are there any alternative options available in the literature that the authors could cite in "State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?"
We added a paragraph about related (software) work to the paper draft.
@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:
@shahmoradi can you please have a look at the changes?
Hi @gchure do you have time to review this paper?
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@dokempf<!--end-author-handle-- (Dominic Kempf) Repository: https://github.com/parafields/parafields Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-paper Version: v1.0.1 Editor: !--editor-->@diehlpk<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @shahmoradi, @gchure Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10355636
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
@max-little & @shahmoradi, 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 @diehlpk 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 @shahmoradi
📝 Checklist for @gchure