Open editorialbot opened 1 week 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
- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1145/3511528.3511535 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2103.05244 is OK
- 10.5194/amt-14-7909-2021 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4899-0433-1_17 is OK
- 10.1016/0021-9045(72)90080-9 is OK
- 10.1145/321607.321609 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4899-0433-1_1 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: On the stability of inverse problems
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Lectures on elementary mathematics, by Joseph Loui...
INVALID DOIs
- None
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.04 s (1278.6 files/s, 131997.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia 23 414 352 2898
Markdown 8 167 0 500
YAML 10 16 5 183
TeX 1 9 0 127
TOML 4 7 0 71
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 46 613 357 3779
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
96 Christopher Rackauckas
95 Sathvik Bhagavan
47 shubham maddhashiya
35 Andreas Noack
22 dependabot[bot]
18 Diogo Netto
12 Anshul Singhvi
12 Arno Strouwen
12 Jonathan Stickel
11 Daniel González
11 Glen Hertz
8 Chris Rackauckas
8 avik-pal
8 github-actions[bot]
7 user.email
6 Tim Kim
6 Venkateshprasad
5 Avik Pal
5 Pepijn de Vos
4 Fredrik Bagge Carlson
3 Anant Thazhemadam
3 Yingbo Ma
3 contradict
3 mleseach
3 xzackli
2 Dilum Aluthge
2 Lucas Pacheco
1 ArnoStrouwen
1 David Widmann
1 Eeshan Gupta
1 Helge Eichhorn
1 Julia TagBot
1 Kristoffer Carlsson
1 KristofferC
1 Lilith Orion Hafner
1 Lyndon White
1 Steven G. Johnson
1 lassepe
Paper file info:
📄 Wordcount for paper.md
is 408
✅ The paper includes a Statement of need
section
License info:
✅ License found: MIT 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:
@carstenbauer, @dawbarton, @sathvikbhagavan – This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.
Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above. Please create your checklist typing:
@editorialbot generate my checklist
As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also 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 https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6917
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 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.
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@sathvikbhagavan<!--end-author-handle-- (Sathvik Bhagavan) Repository: https://github.com/SciML/DataInterpolations.jl Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v5.1.0 Editor: !--editor-->@arfon<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @carstenbauer, @dawbarton 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
@carstenbauer & @dawbarton, 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 @arfon 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 @dawbarton