editorialbot commented 9 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@Ig-dolci@diehlpk<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @matt-graham, @KYANJO Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10817312

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/89bd54d1204e0297bec46740ee23e2ff"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/89bd54d1204e0297bec46740ee23e2ff/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/89bd54d1204e0297bec46740ee23e2ff/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/89bd54d1204e0297bec46740ee23e2ff)

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

@matt-graham, 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:

@editorialbot generate my 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 @matt-graham

📝 Checklist for @KYANJO

editorialbot commented 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

editorialbot commented 9 months ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.06 s (545.1 files/s, 107411.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          19            751           1548           2629
TeX                              1             19              0            181
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            793            144
Markdown                         2             19              0            144
YAML                             4             14             19            142
reStructuredText                 4             66             66             74
TOML                             1              7              0             29
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            34            888           2434           3378
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 9 months ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 857

editorialbot commented 9 months ago

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/347837.347846 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.02978.x is OK
- 10.1137/20M1326209 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compfluid.2010.09.039 is OK
- 10.1145/347837.347846 is OK
- 10.1145/3378672 is OK
- 10.1137/080718036 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2305.09568 is OK
- 10.1137/18M1209465 is OK
- 10.1016/j.procs.2016.05.444 is OK
- 10.1080/10556788.2016.1230612 is OK
- 10.1029/2020JC016370 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jocs.2022.101913 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01292 is OK
- 10.25561/104839 is OK
- 10.11588/ans.2015.100.20553 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 9 months ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

matt-graham commented 9 months ago

Review checklist for @matt-graham

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/firedrakeproject/checkpoint_schedules?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@Ig-dolci) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

diehlpk commented 9 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 9 months ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

diehlpk commented 9 months ago

@matt-graham how is your review going?

diehlpk commented 9 months ago

hi @KYANJO please let me know if you have questions about your first review?

KYANJO commented 9 months ago

It’s going well so far about to finish

With utmost gratitude, Brian KYANJO (He / Him / His), President. SIAM Boise State Chapter, VP. NSBE Boise State Society,

NSBE Public Policy SIG STEM Education, Team Co-Lead, BSc. Physics and Mathematics | MSc. Mathematical Sciences | Computing Ph.D. BSU, https://github.com/KYANJO

On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 2:26 AM Patrick Diehl @.***> wrote:

@matt-graham https://github.com/matt-graham how is your review going?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6148#issuecomment-1878367321, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANLXYJDG64UCOI5O7YRWKC3YM7BLZAVCNFSM6AAAAABAVBTGYOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNZYGM3DOMZSGE . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

-- DISCLAIMER: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and you are herewith notified that the contents are legally privileged and that you do not have permission to disclose the contents to anyone, make copies thereof, retain or distribute or act upon it by any means, electronically, digitally or in print. The views expressed in this communication may be of a personal nature and not be representative of AIMS-Rwanda and/or any of its Initiatives.

KYANJO commented 9 months ago

I will let you know, if i get any questions

With utmost gratitude, Brian KYANJO (He / Him / His), President. SIAM Boise State Chapter, VP. NSBE Boise State Society,

NSBE Public Policy SIG STEM Education, Team Co-Lead, BSc. Physics and Mathematics | MSc. Mathematical Sciences | Computing Ph.D. BSU, https://github.com/KYANJO

On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 2:27 AM Brian Kyanjo @.***> wrote:

It’s going well so far about to finish

With utmost gratitude, Brian KYANJO (He / Him / His), President. SIAM Boise State Chapter, VP. NSBE Boise State Society,

NSBE Public Policy SIG STEM Education, Team Co-Lead, BSc. Physics and Mathematics | MSc. Mathematical Sciences | Computing Ph.D. BSU, https://github.com/KYANJO

On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 2:26 AM Patrick Diehl @.***> wrote:

@matt-graham https://github.com/matt-graham how is your review going?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6148#issuecomment-1878367321, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANLXYJDG64UCOI5O7YRWKC3YM7BLZAVCNFSM6AAAAABAVBTGYOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNZYGM3DOMZSGE . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

-- DISCLAIMER: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and you are herewith notified that the contents are legally privileged and that you do not have permission to disclose the contents to anyone, make copies thereof, retain or distribute or act upon it by any means, electronically, digitally or in print. The views expressed in this communication may be of a personal nature and not be representative of AIMS-Rwanda and/or any of its Initiatives.

KYANJO commented 8 months ago

Review checklist for @KYANJO

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/firedrakeproject/checkpoint_schedules?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[ ] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@Ig-dolci) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[ ] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[ ] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[ ] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

KYANJO commented 8 months ago

I am through with my first review, and I have included comments in the pdf it's self. Find attached. 10.21105.joss.06148.pdf

PS; If there is a better way i can upload the document please let me know, Is it better to create a pull request instead?

diehlpk commented 8 months ago

@Ig-dolci please take a look at the comments.

Ig-dolci commented 8 months ago

@diehlpk Yes. I am aware.

diehlpk commented 8 months ago

@Ig-dolci how are your changes going?

Ig-dolci commented 8 months ago

@diehlpk It is going well. Hopefully, I will return with the reviewer's responses in the coming week.

diehlpk commented 7 months ago

@Ig-dolci how are your changes going?

diehlpk commented 7 months ago

@Ig-dolci how are your changes going?

Ig-dolci commented 7 months ago

@diehlpk It is going well. Unfortunately, it has required more time due to personal unforeseen the last week.

diehlpk commented 7 months ago

@Ig-dolci When do you think you can have the new revision done?

diehlpk commented 7 months ago

@Ig-dolci When do you think you can have the new revision done?

Ig-dolci commented 7 months ago

Hi @diehlpk, I await one PR approval related to a reviewer issue. Once this PR be approved, I will add my review responses. Hopefully, this will happen this week or in the first half of the coming week.

Ig-dolci commented 7 months ago

I am through with my first review, and I have included comments in the pdf it's self. Find attached. 10.21105.joss.06148.pdf

PS; If there is a better way i can upload the document please let me know, Is it better to create a pull request instead?

@KYANJO Thank you for your review! I attached a document containing the responses to your raised issues. letter_Brian_KYANJO.pdf

Ig-dolci commented 7 months ago

Review checklist for @matt-graham

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/firedrakeproject/checkpoint_schedules?

[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?

[ ] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@Ig-dolci) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.

[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.

[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?

[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?

[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?

[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.

[ ] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).

[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?

[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?

[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?

[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?

[ ] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?

[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?

[ ] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

@matt-graham We appreciate your review of our work titled "checkpoint_schedules: schedules for incremental checkpointing of adjoint simulations."

We have answered your raised issues 54 and 55 in the GitHub package checkpoint_schedules.

Thank you for your time and consideration!

Ig-dolci commented 7 months ago

@Ig-dolci When do you think you can have the new revision done?

@diehlpk We have our revision done.

diehlpk commented 7 months ago

Hi @matt-graham, @KYANJO could you please have a look at the revised paper and code?

diehlpk commented 7 months ago

Hi @matt-graham, @KYANJO could you please have a look at the revised paper and code?

KYANJO commented 7 months ago

Okay sure, let me take a look

KYANJO commented 7 months ago

@Ig-dolci, thanks for implementing the corrections. I am good with the outcome

diehlpk commented 6 months ago

@KYANJO could you please have a look at the unticked checkboxes?

matt-graham commented 6 months ago

@diehlpk The authors did a great job at addressing the issues I raised I have now completed my review checklist so this is good for acceptance from my perspective

diehlpk commented 6 months ago

@KYANJO could you please have a look at the unticked checkboxes?

KYANJO commented 6 months ago

Review checklist for @KYANJO

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/firedrakeproject/checkpoint_schedules?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@Ig-dolci) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

diehlpk commented 6 months ago

@matt-graham, @KYANJO Thanks for finishing the review!

diehlpk commented 6 months ago

@editorialbot help

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

Hello @diehlpk, here are the things you can ask me to do:


# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Add to this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot add @username as reviewer

# Remove from this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot remove @username from reviewers

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Assign a user as the editor of this submission
@editorialbot assign @username as editor

# Remove the editor assigned to this submission
@editorialbot remove editor

# Remind an author, a reviewer or the editor to return to a review after a 
# certain period of time (supported units days and weeks)
@editorialbot remind @reviewer in 2 weeks

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for version
@editorialbot set v1.0.0 as version

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Set a value for repository
@editorialbot set https://github.com/organization/repo as repository

# Set a value for the archive DOI
@editorialbot set set 10.5281/zenodo.6861996 as archive

# Mention the EiCs for the correct track
@editorialbot ping track-eic

# Run checks and provide information on the repository and the paper file
@editorialbot check repository

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Recommends the submission for acceptance
@editorialbot recommend-accept

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Flag submission with questionable scope
@editorialbot query scope

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

# Creates a post-review checklist with editor and authors tasks
@editorialbot create post-review checklist

# Open the review issue
@editorialbot start review

diehlpk commented 6 months ago

@editorialbot commands

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

Hello @diehlpk, here are the things you can ask me to do:


# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Add to this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot add @username as reviewer

# Remove from this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot remove @username from reviewers

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Assign a user as the editor of this submission
@editorialbot assign @username as editor

# Remove the editor assigned to this submission
@editorialbot remove editor

# Remind an author, a reviewer or the editor to return to a review after a 
# certain period of time (supported units days and weeks)
@editorialbot remind @reviewer in 2 weeks

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for version
@editorialbot set v1.0.0 as version

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Set a value for repository
@editorialbot set https://github.com/organization/repo as repository

# Set a value for the archive DOI
@editorialbot set set 10.5281/zenodo.6861996 as archive

# Mention the EiCs for the correct track
@editorialbot ping track-eic

# Run checks and provide information on the repository and the paper file
@editorialbot check repository

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Recommends the submission for acceptance
@editorialbot recommend-accept

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Flag submission with questionable scope
@editorialbot query scope

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

# Creates a post-review checklist with editor and authors tasks
@editorialbot create post-review checklist

# Open the review issue
@editorialbot start review

diehlpk commented 6 months ago

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

Double check authors and affiliations (including ORCIDs)
Make a release of the software with the latest changes from the review and post the version number here. This is the version that will be used in the JOSS paper.
Archive the release on Zenodo/figshare/etc and post the DOI here.
Make sure that the title and author list (including ORCIDs) in the archive match those in the JOSS paper.
Make sure that the license listed for the archive is the same as the software license.

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance

[x] Read the text of the paper and offer comments/corrections (as either a list or a pull request)
[x] Check that the archive title, author list, version tag, and the license are correct
[x] Set archive DOI with @editorialbot set <DOI here> as archive
[x] Set version with @editorialbot set <version here> as version
[x] Double check rendering of paper with @editorialbot generate pdf
[x] Specifically check the references with @editorialbot check references and ask author(s) to update as needed
[x] Recommend acceptance with @editorialbot recommend-accept

diehlpk commented 6 months ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/347837.347846 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.02978.x is OK
- 10.1137/20M1326209 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compfluid.2010.09.039 is OK
- 10.1145/347837.347846 is OK
- 10.1145/3378672 is OK
- 10.1137/080718036 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2305.09568 is OK
- 10.1137/18M1209465 is OK
- 10.1016/j.procs.2016.05.444 is OK
- 10.1080/10556788.2016.1230612 is OK
- 10.1029/2020JC016370 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jocs.2022.101913 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01292 is OK
- 10.25561/104839 is OK
- 10.11588/ans.2015.100.20553 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Providing the ARCHER community with adjoint modell...

INVALID DOIs

- None

diehlpk commented 6 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

diehlpk commented 6 months ago

@Ig-dolci Please finish these tasks, so we can proceed with the paper

[ ] Double check authors and affiliations (including ORCIDs)
[ ] Make a release of the software with the latest changes from the review and post the version number here. This is the version that will be used in the JOSS paper.
[ ] Archive the release on Zenodo/figshare/etc and post the DOI here.
[ ] Make sure that the title and author list (including ORCIDs) in the archive match those in the JOSS paper.
[ ] Make sure that the license listed for the archive is the same as the software license.

Ig-dolci commented 6 months ago

@Ig-dolci Please finish these tasks, so we can proceed with the paper

[x] Double check authors and affiliations (including ORCIDs)

[x] Make a release of the software with the latest changes from the review and post the version number here. This is the version that will be used in the JOSS paper.

[x] Archive the release on Zenodo/figshare/etc and post the DOI here.

[x] Make sure that the title and author list (including ORCIDs) in the archive match those in the JOSS paper.

[x] Make sure that the license listed for the archive is the same as the software license.

@diehlpk below the latest release and Zenodo DOI. Release version: v1.0.3 Zenodo DOI: 10817312

diehlpk commented 6 months ago

@editorialbot set v1.0.3 as version

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

Done! version is now v1.0.3

diehlpk commented 6 months ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.10817312 as archive

openjournals / joss-reviews

[REVIEW]: checkpoint_schedules: schedules for incremental of adjoint simulations #6148

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

Review checklist for @matt-graham

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @KYANJO

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @matt-graham

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @KYANJO

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance