Open editorialbot opened 3 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
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/j.mri.2009.02.004 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-018-0235-4 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10403681 is OK
- 10.1177/0271678X15614846 is OK
- 10.1177/0271678X17709198 is OK
- 10.1016/j.nicl.2017.10.027 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.12 s (861.5 files/s, 225867.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVG 6 1 106 12326
Python 63 1700 2002 6852
JSON 17 5 0 3143
CSV 1 0 0 401
YAML 5 32 26 360
reStructuredText 8 154 109 287
make 2 39 6 229
TeX 1 5 0 91
Markdown 1 19 0 48
TOML 1 5 0 45
DOS Batch 1 8 1 26
INI 1 4 0 22
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 107 1972 2250 23830
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
51 Alix Lamouroux
36 Alix LAMOUROUX
34 alixlam
Paper file info:
π Wordcount for paper.md
is 689
β
The paper includes a Statement of need
section
License info:
β
License found: Apache License 2.0
(Valid open source OSI approved license)
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Hello again! πβ¨
@behinger, @mnarayan, @SRSteinkamp
FYI @alixlam
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/6636 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.
As seen above, create an issue regarding the mismatched between the listed installation requirements and python verison: https://github.com/alixlam/fmristroke/issues/11 Maybe someone else has a better idea of good practices writing requirements.txts .
Hi all!
@behinger, @SRSteinkamp -- I can see you have already made a lot of progress in your review! Thank you :-) What is your expected timeline for completing your part? Are there some issues that will take longer (e.g., because of iterations with @alixlam)? What's the general status?
@mnarayan I haven't heard from you in some weeks, do you still intend to volunteer as a reviewer for this project? If so, what's your expected timeline for starting this review?
Hi! Thanks for asking. I think we are both waiting for alixlam to post some test-data / procedure. https://github.com/alixlam/fmristroke/issues/14#issuecomment-2084615050 to get us up to speed.
Hey @alixlam π could you please supply a short update on your efforts on adding some test-data / procedure?
Hello, so sorry for the time taken to respond. I did find open data to share and ran fMRIprep on it to have the necessary derivatives to test the repository. However, I am not sure it is a good idea to add the data files directly to the repository as they are quite heavy files. Do you have any suggestions on how to share them ? @sappelhoff @behinger
You could upload them to osf (or fig share if you prefer), and link it. Then write a short documentation page how to access+run these data. Typically open euro is cc-by, so you can easily rehost.
I would not necessarily run a system unit-test with them if they cannot be made smaller.
Thanks for your reply @alixlam and for finding appropriate data. I agree with @behinger on how to handle them.
Hey @alixlam π do you have a status update for us? How is the uploading of the data and the writing of documentation on how to access and use it going?
Some data can be found here : https://osf.io/5z4ry/. With raw data and fmriprep derivatives. The documentation has been updated especially the Usage Notes part.
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@alixlam<!--end-author-handle-- (Alix Marie Eleonore Lamouroux) Repository: https://github.com/alixlam/fmristroke Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@sappelhoff<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @SRSteinkamp, @behinger, @mnarayan 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
@SRSteinkamp & @behinger & @mnarayan, 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 @SRSteinkamp
π Checklist for @behinger