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
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.11 s (1141.6 files/s, 173965.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia 58 2613 3803 6351
Markdown 46 1096 0 3825
SVG 2 0 0 302
YAML 9 14 12 209
Lisp 1 23 0 119
TeX 1 16 0 94
TOML 3 8 0 76
CSV 1 1 0 18
XML 1 0 0 12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 122 3771 3815 11006
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
592 Boris Kaus
62 mthielma
59 Marcel Thielmann
35 Pascal Aellig
25 Arne_Spang
21 Luca De Siena
19 ChristianSchuler
16 ArneSpang
14 APiccolo89
13 LukasFuchs
11 TatjanaWeiler
7 Albert de Montserrat
5 Hendrik Ranocha
5 dependabot[bot]
1 Arne Spang
1 jfrasunk
1 nicolasriel
Paper file info:
📄 Wordcount for paper.md
is 2219
✅ The paper includes a Statement of need
section
License info:
✅ License found: MIT License
(Valid open source OSI approved license)
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.5194/se-10-1785-2019 is OK
- 10.1029/2019GC008515 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-12-1-2019 is OK
- 10.5194/se-12-2671-2021 is OK
- 10.1029/2023GC011356 is OK
- 10.1029/2021JB023488 is OK
- 10.51363/unifr.sth.2022.001 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1969.tb00259.x is OK
- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1029/2023GL104895 is OK
- 10.1029/2023GL103132 is OK
- 2128/9842 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-023-47104-w is OK
- 10.1029/2018GC008057 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-017-11039-w is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
👋🏼 @boriskaus @anowacki @AnantHariharan1996 this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.
As a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering
@editorialbot generate my checklist
as the top of a new comment in this thread.
These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.
The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#REVIEW_NUMBER
so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.
We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if any of you require some more time. We can also use EditorialBot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.
Please feel free to ping me (@rwegener2) if you have any questions/concerns.
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Hi @anowacki anything questions getting started with your review? The first step is to run @editorialbot generate my checklist
to generate your checklist, then follow steps listed in the comment that gets automatically generated. Feel free to ping me if anything isn't clear!
@rwegener2 Apologies—I hadn't realised that I needed to run things to ggenerate the checklist. I will get on with this now.
@rwegener2 I have finished my review and have no comments or issues that need to be addressed before acceptance. Thanks for your contribution to the community, @boriskaus!
Thanks @anowacki!
@AnantHariharan1996 how are things going for you? If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask!
Hi @AnantHariharan1996 👋🏻 Just checking in. How is the review going?
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@boriskaus<!--end-author-handle-- (Boris Kaus) Repository: https://github.com/JuliaGeodynamics/GeophysicalModelGenerator.jl Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): bk-joss-paper Version: v0.7.0 Editor: !--editor-->@rwegener2<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @anowacki, @AnantHariharan1996 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
@anowacki & @AnantHariharan1996, 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 @rwegener2 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 @AnantHariharan1996
📝 Checklist for @anowacki