Open editorialbot opened 2 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
- 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/154 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa548 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa2219 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1304208111 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aca614 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12353.x is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa238 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2007.11.006 is OK
- 10.1029/2023JE007904 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aad564 is OK
- 10.1029/90JD01945 is OK
- 10.1145/2833157.2833162 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20013.x is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/137 is OK
- 10.3847/2515-5172/acc46a is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx1139 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/24 is OK
- 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/41 is OK
- 10.1038/nature11611 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stad2555 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/50 may be a valid DOI for title: A CONSISTENT RETRIEVAL ANALYSIS OF 10 HOT JUPITERS...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Simultaneous Retrieval of Phase-Resolved JWST/MIRI...
INVALID DOIs
- None
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.12 s (432.3 files/s, 85284.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 44 626 1849 7264
TeX 1 24 0 397
reStructuredText 4 46 33 109
Markdown 1 9 0 38
DOS Batch 1 8 1 26
make 2 5 7 13
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 53 718 1890 7847
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
167 Jingxuan Yang
1 Jingxuan97
1 yangj
Paper file info:
π Wordcount for paper.md
is 689
β
The paper includes a Statement of need
section
License info:
β
License found: BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
(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:
Hi @Jingxuan97! Would you please be able to address the missing DOIs in the paper?
I've completed my initial review. Excellent package! This is a very useful tool for the community, thanks for open-sourcing your hard work. I've opened a handful of minor issues on the repository itself that shouldn't take long to fix. I've also opened one issue that is my only major blocker right now, which concerns the documentation of the package. More details are included here. Once the documentation is augmented/this issue is resolved, I'd be happy to recommend acceptance. Great work again!
Hi Ben @ben-cassese, many thanks for the comments!
Hi Josh @JBorrow, should I be expecting comments from another reviewer?
Yes, @shubhagrawal30 should be making comments at some point shortly; please let me know @shubhagrawal30 if you will need longer than a week or so!
@Jingxuan97 looks great, only a few minor issues to be flagged:
Issues:
Some notes:
P.S. @JBorrow: Generally speaking, I cannot claim to be a good judge of "Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?" in Contribution and authorship. Not sure of the expectations, but as an independent reviewer, I have no clue who has worked on this project. I have checked the box, but defer to others including editorial staff.
Thank you @shubhagrawal30 https://github.com/shubhagrawal30 for your comments!
On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 3:19β―PM Shubh Agrawal @.***> wrote:
Only Minor Issues:
- Added a note about community guidelines to the previously added issue#3 https://github.com/Jingxuan97/nemesispy/issues/3.
- State of the field: issue#5 https://github.com/Jingxuan97/nemesispy/issues/5
- Functionality documentation: issue#6 https://github.com/Jingxuan97/nemesispy/issues/6 (x3)
Some notes:
- Performance: paper talks about just-in-time compilation to improve speeds for Bayesian retrieval ---> extensive use of numba jit, so looks good.
- previous issues from other reviewer seem to have been taken care of.
P.S. @JBorrow https://github.com/JBorrow: Generally speaking, I cannot claim to be a good judge of "Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?" in Contribution and authorship. Not sure of the expectations, but as an independent reviewer, I have no clue who has worked on this project. I have checked the box, but defer to others including editorial staff.
β Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6874#issuecomment-2214210019, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APJTTQVOUGJ65YHKWQKFVV3ZLKNXNAVCNFSM6AAAAABJEMSEJ6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDEMJUGIYTAMBRHE . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
Hi @shubhagrawal30 and @ben-cassese, I have addressed your comments. Please see the comments under the GitHub issue trackers for detail. Also updating @JBorrow. Thank you kindly for all your efforts!
Very minor additional note on https://github.com/Jingxuan97/nemesispy/issues/6, everything else looks good to go!
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@Jingxuan97 has addressed all of my concerns!
Great! Thank you both for your insightful reviews.
@shubhagrawal30, regarding your question - on smaller projects like this that's less of a concern. When we have, for instance, 20 or so authors, we like to make sure that they all actually contributed to the project.
@shubhagrawal30 please let me know if there is anything outstanding on your end or not.
Hi @shubhagrawal30 we're just waiting on your final confirmation (a completed checklist) and we can move this paper along. Thanks!
Hi, I am confirming that all issues have been addressed. Thanks!
Fantastic, thank you! @Jingxuan97, the next steps are as follows:
See here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#review-process.
@editorialbot generate pdf
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/154 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa548 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/50 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa2219 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1304208111 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aca614 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12353.x is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa238 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2007.11.006 is OK
- 10.1029/2023JE007904 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aad564 is OK
- 10.1029/90JD01945 is OK
- 10.1145/2833157.2833162 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20013.x is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/137 is OK
- 10.3847/2515-5172/acc46a is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx1139 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/24 is OK
- 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/41 is OK
- 10.1038/nature11611 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stae1427 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stad2555 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:
Hi @Jingxuan97 a reminder that we are awaiting a Zenodo deposit of the final version of the software with the following criteria:
We can then proceed to publication with some minor final checks.
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@Jingxuan97<!--end-author-handle-- (Jingxuan Yang) Repository: https://github.com/Jingxuan97/nemesispy Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: 0.0.10 Editor: !--editor-->@JBorrow<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @shubhagrawal30, @ben-cassese 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
@shubhagrawal30 & @ben-cassese, 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 @JBorrow 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 @ben-cassese
π Checklist for @shubhagrawal30