Closed editorialbot closed 11 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 (258.2 files/s, 59765.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TeX 1 0 0 227
Markdown 1 42 0 194
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 2 42 0 421
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 1166
Failed to discover a valid open source license
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1101/2023.05.09.540012 is OK
- 10.1111/2041-210X.13168 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05082 is OK
- 10.1186/s12942-021-00267-z is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01686 is OK
- 10.1201/9781351201315 is OK
- 10.1201/9781351201315 is OK
- 10.32614/RJ-2018-009 is OK
- 10.1201/9780429459016 is OK
- 10.14714/CP69.20 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
@mikejohnson51 and @Yingjie4Science thank you once again for agreeing to review this submission. This is the "official" review issue, instructions for creating your reviewer checklist and conducting the review should be in the top comment of this issue, but please do not hesitate to reach out to me with any questions or to ask for any clarification.
Ideally we'd like to ask that you complete your reviews within 6 weeks, and I will set up reminder so the bot prods us all in 3 weeks.
Thanks, Jay
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@editorialbot remind @mikejohnson51 in three weeks
Reminder set for @mikejohnson51 in three weeks
@editorialbot remind @Yingjie4Science in three weeks
Reminder set for @Yingjie4Science in three weeks
@editorialbot set main as branch
Done! branch is now main
@editorialbot check repository
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.30 s (1120.0 files/s, 196279.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVG 173 0 0 32201
R 125 4773 6032 12261
Markdown 18 216 0 969
YAML 12 99 44 466
JSON 2 0 0 391
Rmd 5 331 782 387
TeX 1 0 0 227
XML 2 0 0 58
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 338 5419 6858 46960
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Failed to discover a Statement of need
section in paper
@editorialbot set joss as branch
Done! branch is now joss
@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 repository
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.01 s (336.1 files/s, 67899.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TeX 1 0 0 238
Markdown 1 34 0 132
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 2 34 0 370
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 907
Failed to discover a valid open source license
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1101/2023.05.09.540012 is OK
- 10.1111/2041-210X.13168 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05082 is OK
- 10.1186/s12942-021-00267-z is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01686 is OK
- 10.1201/9781351201315 is OK
- 10.1201/9781351201315 is OK
- 10.32614/RJ-2018-009 is OK
- 10.1201/9780429459016 is OK
- 10.14714/CP69.20 is OK
- 10.1101/2023.07.24.550358 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:
Hi @mikejohnson51, @Yingjie4Science:
Thanks for volunteering on this submission. Please note that after the comment of @elbeejay in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5675#issuecomment-1665955080 I modified slightly the Examples section (https://github.com/dieghernan/tidyterra/commit/0820452a2b3ba34307a8c89996c8a44bdfcf48b6) and now the paper wordcount is 907 (therefore between 250-1000 words as per the JOSS Guidelines.
The corresponding pdf have been generated and linked in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5751#issuecomment-1673224096.
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0286036 is OK
- 10.1111/2041-210X.13168 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05082 is OK
- 10.1186/s12942-021-00267-z is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01686 is OK
- 10.1201/9781351201315 is OK
- 10.1201/9781351201315 is OK
- 10.32614/RJ-2018-009 is OK
- 10.1201/9780429459016 is OK
- 10.14714/CP69.20 is OK
- 10.1101/2023.07.24.550358 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:
Thank you for the follow-ups @dieghernan - I'll just note that reviewers can also re-generate the paper as they wish and do any additional checks of the references or the repository.
:wave: @mikejohnson51, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
:wave: @Yingjie4Science, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
Checking in @mikejohnson51, and @Yingjie4Science, please let us know how your reviews are going (if they have started) or when you anticipate having time to do a review. Thanks!
This is on my agenda for next week. Thanks for checking in!
@elbeejay Thanks for the reminder. I am working on it too and will update my review status by this week.
Hi @mikejohnson51 and @Yingjie4Science just wanted to reach out for updates on how the reviews are going.
Paging @Yingjie4Science and @mikejohnson51 - any updates?
@dieghernan - sorry to say that if we don't hear from @Yingjie4Science or @mikejohnson51 this week I may need to search for another reviewer. Apologies for the delay.
@editorialbot start review
I'm sorry @Yingjie4Science, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do.
@dieghernan seems like @Yingjie4Science has generated their checklist and started looking at some of the submission. I've heard from @mikejohnson51 via email and it sounds like they will be able to get to this next week as well.
@elbeejay Sorry for the delay as I was on a long-distance international trip. I am working on it and will aim to finish the review as soon as possible!
Sounds good, thanks for the update @Yingjie4Science
@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-->@dieghernan<!--end-author-handle-- (Diego Hernangómez) Repository: https://github.com/dieghernan/tidyterra Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss Version: v0.4.1 Editor: !--editor-->@elbeejay<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @mikejohnson51, @Yingjie4Science Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10078157
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
@mikejohnson51 & @Yingjie4Science, 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 @elbeejay 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 @Yingjie4Science
📝 Checklist for @mikejohnson51