Closed editorialbot closed 10 months 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
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.5194/egusphere-egu21-9632 is OK
- 10.1145/3399579.3399867 is OK
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3262138 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.21 s (1201.8 files/s, 93645.2 lines/s)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 180 2242 1235 11428
Markdown 43 1051 0 2509
YAML 5 38 8 431
JSON 9 5 0 219
TOML 1 9 0 72
Jupyter Notebook 1 0 106 57
TeX 1 2 0 32
HTML 1 0 0 29
reStructuredText 2 31 31 27
CSS 1 1 0 24
make 1 7 1 18
SVG 3 0 0 9
Bourne Shell 2 0 1 8
Dockerfile 1 1 0 2
Windows Module Definition 1 0 0 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 252 3387 1382 14867
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 1410
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Five most similar historical JOSS papers:
GAMA: Genetic Automated Machine learning Assistant
Submitting author: @PGijsbers
Handling editor: @arokem (Retired)
Reviewers: @jsgalan
Similarity score: 0.8141
Application Skeleton: Generating Synthetic Applications for Infrastructure Research
Submitting author: @zhaozhang
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @krother
Similarity score: 0.8125
DARE Platform: a Developer-Friendly and Self-Optimising Workflows-as-a-Service Framework for e-Science on the Cloud
Submitting author: @iaklampanos
Handling editor: @danielskatz (Active)
Reviewers: @rafaelfsilva, @Himscipy
Similarity score: 0.8097
TUM Open Infra Platform: an open source package for simultaneous viewing and analysis of digital models in the civil engineering domain
Submitting author: @pjanck
Handling editor: @hugoledoux (Active)
Reviewers: @aothms, @CBenghi, @abdoulayediak
Similarity score: 0.8086
CHAMP is a HPC Access and Metadata Portal
Submitting author: @cc-a
Handling editor: @crvernon (Active)
Reviewers: @thurber, @acrlakshman
Similarity score: 0.8075
⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.
@rico-berner - thanks for your submission to JOSS. We're currently managing a large backlog of submissions and the editor most appropriate for your area is already rather busy.
For now, we will need to waitlist this paper and process it as the queue reduces. Thanks for your patience!
@arfon I will be open to topic editing the workflow and dataflow related software submissions including this one. Let me know if I can be any help.
@editorialbot assign me as editor
Assigned! @arfon is now the editor
@cc-a @iaklampanos @zhaozhang – :wave: would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The submission under consideration is Mantik: A Workflow Platform for the Development of Artificial Intelligence on High-Performance Computing Infrastructures
The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. You can learn more about the process in these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html
Based on your experience, and past submissions to JOSS, we think you might be able to provide a great review of this submission. Please let me know if you think you can help us out!
Many thanks Arfon
@rico-berner – if you have any other suggestions for editors, please let me know.
I can review it after 12/01.
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 05:08 Arfon Smith @.***> wrote:
@cc-a https://github.com/cc-a @iaklampanos https://github.com/iaklampanos @zhaozhang https://github.com/zhaozhang – 👋 would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The submission under consideration is Mantik: A Workflow Platform for the Development of Artificial Intelligence on High-Performance Computing Infrastructures
The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. You can learn more about the process in these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html
Based on your experience, and past submissions to JOSS, we think you might be able to provide a great review of this submission. Please let me know if you think you can help us out!
Many thanks Arfon
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5891#issuecomment-1825432884, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABEHWOGRZBXSR3CIM33333LYGBWY7AVCNFSM6AAAAAA5LOWSIOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQMRVGQZTEOBYGQ . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
Unfortunately I can't commit to reviewing this at this moment.
:wave: @krother – would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The submission under consideration is Mantik: A Workflow Platform for the Development of Artificial Intelligence on High-Performance Computing Infrastructures
The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. You can learn more about the process in these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html
Based on your experience, and past submissions to JOSS, we think you might be able to provide a great review of this submission. Please let me know if you think you can help us out!
Many thanks Arfon
@rico-berner – if you have any other suggestions for editors, please let me know.
@arfon Unfortunately, I don't have any suggestions.
@editorialbot assign @zhaozhang as reviewer
I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:
@editorialbot commands
@editorialbot add @zhaozhang as reviewer
@zhaozhang added to the reviewers list!
@editorialbot start review
OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6136.
@zhaozhang - many thanks for agreeing to review this submission. I'll go ahead and start the review while I look for a second reviewer. @rico-berner @zhaozhang – see you over in #6136 where the actual review will take place.
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@rico-berner<!--end-author-handle-- (Rico Berner) Repository: https://gitlab.com/mantik-ai/mantik Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: 0.4.2 Editor: !--editor-->@arfon<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: !--reviewers-list-->@zhaozhang<!--end-reviewers-list-- Managing EiC: Arfon Smith
Status
Status badge code:
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @rico-berner. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
@rico-berner 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: