Closed editorialbot closed 5 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=0.12 s (911.3 files/s, 106775.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 79 1983 3798 4820
Markdown 5 145 0 527
reStructuredText 12 300 277 387
YAML 8 29 47 190
TeX 1 12 0 95
CSS 1 23 7 87
make 2 18 8 48
TOML 1 4 0 45
HTML 1 6 0 32
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 110 2520 4137 6231
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 1319
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/j.softx.2019.100361 is OK
- 10.1561/2200000016 is OK
- 10.1007/s10851-010-0251-1 is OK
- 10.1093/gji/ggab388 is OK
- 10.1109/GlobalSIP.2013.6737048 is OK
- 10.1190/tle42070457.1 is OK
- 10.3997/2214-4609.2022616015 is OK
- 10.3997/2214-4609.2021612003 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1109/tci.2024.3359178 may be a valid DOI for title: Interferometric Lensless Imaging: Rank-one Projections of Image Frequencies with Speckle Illuminations
INVALID DOIs
- None
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Hello again! πβ¨
@nirum, @ewu63, @Leo-Simpson
FYI @mrava87
This is the review thread for the paper. All of our higher-level communications will happen here from now on, review comments and discussion can happen in the repository of the project (details below).
π Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the comment from our editorialbot (above).
β All reviewers get their own checklist with the JOSS requirements - you generate them as per the details in the editorialbot comment. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied.
π» The JOSS review is different from most other journals: The reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention the link to https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6326 so that a link is created to this thread. That will also help me to keep track!
β Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread if you are unsure about something!
π― We aim for the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks but please make a start well ahead of this as JOSS reviews are by their nature iterative and any early feedback you may be able to provide to the author will be very helpful in meeting this schedule.
@ewu63 thanks for getting started!
@nirum @leo-simpson friendly reminder about your review in this thread. π
@ewu63 if you are done with your review (seems like it from your checkmarks), I'd appreciate if you could write a short summary whether you recommend this paper for acceptance or/and if some points still need to be addressed.
Same for @nirum once you are finished, please π
@leo-simpson I haven't heard back from you in 3 weeks -- would you still like to review this paper? Please just let me know if you cannot make it so that I can find a potential replacement for you. It would be great to have all reviews finished within the next three weeks, approximately.
@sappelhoff I recommend this paper for acceptance, pending the following points to be addressed:
This is tracked at PyLops/pyproximal#166
Thanks @ewu63, I have included now your comments as also written in the Github issue. Let me know if you agree or if you have any further suggestion :)
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@sappelhoff the authors have addressed all my concerns, I recommend this paper for publication.
@mrava87 I really enjoyed reading through your repository. I especially appreciated the nice set of tutorials. Overall everything is clearly written and nicely documented. @sappelhoff I recommend for publication
@nirum thanks a lot!
@ewu63 I see that you have changed your GitHub handle. Just FYI I will try to unassign the old handle (nwu63
) from this review and assign your new one (@ewu63
), so that the links will work and credit can be properly assigned to you as a reviewer.
@editorialbot add @ewu63 as reviewer
@ewu63 added to the reviewers list!
@editorialbot remove @nwu63 from reviewers
@nwu63 removed from the reviewers list!
@Leo-Simpson I haven't heard back from you in 5 weeks now, so I am going to unassign you from the list of reviewers. I'd be happy to welcome you as a reviewer on another project, if the need of JOSS for a reviewer and your own time for volunteering should align again in the future.
@mrava87 we do not need to find another reviewer, as we have two full reviews ready and I judge this situation adequate to proceed.
@editorialbot remove @Leo-Simpson from reviewers
@Leo-Simpson removed from the reviewers list!
@sappelhoff thanks a lot for the feedback, this is a great news :)
Anything needed from me at this point?
@mrava87 yes! In particular, we will now need a tagged release of your software, and an archive of that tagged version (for example on Zenodo, using the GitHub integration). I am going to let the bot create a checklist for us in the next comment.
@editorialbot set <DOI here> as archive
@editorialbot set <version here> as version
@editorialbot generate pdf
@editorialbot check references
and ask author(s) to update as needed@editorialbot recommend-accept
And before I forget: A big thank you already at this point to @nirum and @ewu63 for completing your reviews. π
@mrava87 I could not find you in our reviewer database - we'd be very grateful if you considered signing up to pay it forward π you can do that here: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
@ewu63 I also did not find you in that reviewer database. If you enjoyed being a reviewer for JOSS and would consider doing so again in the future, please sign up, too!
@mrava87 please let me know once you finished your items from the list above: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6326#issuecomment-1988377528
I will then work on my final items, and then it's (hopefully) finally time to ship it!
@sappelhoff thanks, I'll get on to this tomorrow and let you know when I am done.
And, I just signed up to the Joss database, so you should see me now :)
New version number: v8.0.0 (release notes: https://github.com/PyLops/pyproximal/releases/tag/v0.8.0
Zenodo DOI: DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10805997 (https://zenodo.org/records/10805997)
@sappelhoff I followed your checklist. I don't see to be able to tick the boxes but the first one, but I think I have taken care of all the points.
Let me know if anything is missing :)
@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 references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/j.softx.2019.100361 is OK
- 10.1561/2200000016 is OK
- 10.1007/s10851-010-0251-1 is OK
- 10.1093/gji/ggab388 is OK
- 10.1109/GlobalSIP.2013.6737048 is OK
- 10.1190/tle42070457.1 is OK
- 10.3997/2214-4609.2022616015 is OK
- 10.1109/tci.2024.3359178 is OK
- 10.3997/2214-4609.2021612003 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- Entry without DOI or title found
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Proximal splitting methods in signal processing
- No DOI given, and none found for title: proxalgs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: proxmin
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Proximity Operator Repository
- No DOI given, and none found for title: pyxu
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ProxImaL
INVALID DOIs
- None
@mrava87 thanks for your checks! I did some digging into the references and found some DOIs that we should add to your bib entries. Please see below and check/add accordingly:
Please tag me once you have completed this work. Feel free to also type @editorialbot check references
in a separate comment, once you are done.
@sappelhoff, done! Thanks for digging into DOIs for me :D
There are still 2 reference of GitHub packages without DOIs, but I can't really find any paper connected to it that we could cite instead. Initially I tried to cite repositories, but I agree with you that if a related paper exists it is better to cite a paper even if it is not 1-1 match with the software package.
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/j.softx.2019.100361 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4419-9569-8_10 is OK
- 10.1561/2200000016 is OK
- 10.1007/s10851-010-0251-1 is OK
- 10.1093/gji/ggab388 is OK
- 10.1109/GlobalSIP.2013.6737048 is OK
- 10.1190/tle42070457.1 is OK
- 10.3997/2214-4609.2022616015 is OK
- 10.1109/tci.2024.3359178 is OK
- 10.3997/2214-4609.2021612003 is OK
- 10.1007/s11081-018-9380-y is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4486431 is OK
- 10.1145/2897824.2925875 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: proxalgs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Proximity Operator Repository
INVALID DOIs
- doi.org/10.1561/2400000003 is INVALID because of 'doi.org/' prefix
Ops, I made a mistake⦠will fix the broken DOI soon :)
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/j.softx.2019.100361 is OK
- 10.1561/2400000003 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4419-9569-8_10 is OK
- 10.1561/2200000016 is OK
- 10.1007/s10851-010-0251-1 is OK
- 10.1093/gji/ggab388 is OK
- 10.1109/GlobalSIP.2013.6737048 is OK
- 10.1190/tle42070457.1 is OK
- 10.3997/2214-4609.2022616015 is OK
- 10.1109/tci.2024.3359178 is OK
- 10.3997/2214-4609.2021612003 is OK
- 10.1007/s11081-018-9380-y is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4486431 is OK
- 10.1145/2897824.2925875 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: proxalgs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Proximity Operator Repository
INVALID DOIs
- None
@sappelhoff done :)
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.10805997 as archive
Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.10805997
@editorialbot set v0.8.0 as version
Done! version is now v0.8.0
@editorialbot generate pdf
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@mrava87<!--end-author-handle-- (Matteo Ravasi) Repository: http://github.com/pylops/pyproximal/ Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss Version: v0.8.0 Editor: !--editor-->@sappelhoff<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @nirum, @ewu63 Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10805997
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
@nirum & @ewu63, 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 @sappelhoff 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 @ewu63
π Checklist for @nirum