Open editorialbot opened 9 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 (901.8 files/s, 202359.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 17 933 2034 1681
Markdown 14 165 0 375
Jupyter Notebook 5 0 4496 295
SVG 2 2 2 261
YAML 4 23 0 105
TOML 1 9 2 68
CSS 1 7 3 60
reStructuredText 2 58 81 55
TeX 1 2 0 34
make 1 4 3 13
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 48 1203 6621 2947
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
- 10.3390/ijerph18126329 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a 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:
@jsheunis @kaurao Thank you so much for agreeing to review! You can find the article in the comment box above β¬οΈ and the software repository linked in the first comment box on this issue. To generate your checklist, use the following command:
@editorialbot generate my checklist
I think you're good to go. Again, JOSS is an open review process and we encourage communication between the reviewers, the submitting author, and the editor. And please feel free to ask me questions, I'm always around.
Can you please respond here (or give a thumbs up) so I know you're in the right place and found all the materials?
Thank you for the feedback @jsheunis - much appreciated - I plan to get to these over the next few days.
@mbobra @jsheunis Thanks both for looking at this submission. I think I've improved things and addressed the issues raised; tagged a new version with the changes and the paper
branch is up to date. I guess we're waiting for another review too, but I wasn't sure if there was a step I should take at this point?
@editorialbot generate pdf
I wasn't sure if there was a step I should take at this point?
:wave: @kwinkunks Nice, thanks! This was speedy. I think there are still some unchecked boxes on @jsheunis' review -- if you think you've addressed all remaining concerns, then feel free to ping them here. Otherwise, let's give the other reivewer some time to finish the review.
Thank you for the review @kaurao - I will try to get to the issues this week, weekend for sure.
@mbobra I do think I got everything, but maybe I'll ping Stephan when I've revised for Kaustubh then we can see where we're at. Cheers!
Just wanted to update everyone; I guess I got a bit derailed over the holiday period. I am working on improving the docs and will revert soon with a response to Kaustubh's suggestions. Cheers!
Sounds good, thanks for the update @kwinkunks!
π @kwinkunks How is it going? Do you need any help with this submission?
Hello @mbobra -- thank you for checking in. Sorry to be so slow. I must admit, I got a bit crushed by item 4 in the 'final' issue https://github.com/scienxlab/redflag/issues/97 -- probably I blew it out of proportion. If it's okay with you, I will review where I am and close that issue -- then I'll come back here ASAP.
π @mbobra - could you check in on this one and let me know if we need to pause this submission? Thanks!
π @mbobra - just pinging you on this one again
π @kwinkunks How is it going? Can we pause this submission or do you think you'll be able to wrap this up in the next couple of weeks or so? There's no problem with pausing -- we can always pick it back up where we started, but this way we give the referees and editors a break from checking in on a frequent basis. Please let me know!
π @mbobra - I believe at this point I am going to pause this for two weeks as we discussed internally after which we will likely have to withdraw this submission if we don't hear back from the author to free up yours and the reviewers time.
@kwinkunks please respond in this thread to @mbobra if you are able to proceed with this review. Thank you!
@editorialbot remind me in two weeks
Reminder set for @crvernon in two weeks
:wave: @crvernon, please take a look at the state of the submission (this is an automated reminder).
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@kwinkunks<!--end-author-handle-- (Matt Hall) Repository: https://github.com/scienxlab/redflag Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper Version: v0.4.1 Editor: !--editor-->@mbobra<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @jsheunis, @kaurao Archive: Pending
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
@jsheunis & @kaurao, 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 @mbobra know.
β¨ 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 β¨
Checklists
π Checklist for @jsheunis
π Checklist for @kaurao