Open editorialbot opened 2 days 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
- 10.1093/comnet/cnu016 is OK
- 10.1109/TNSE.2017.2753963 is OK
- 10.1093/comnet/cnac005 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2308.00083 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-19754-3_16 is OK
- 10.1137/1.9781611972870.13 is OK
- 10.1038/srep04547 is OK
- 10.1109/TEM.2020.3032160 is OK
- 10.1007/s41109-020-00301-2 is OK
- 10.1088/1367-2630/17/7/073029 is OK
- 10.7554/eLife.43094 is OK
- 10.1093/scan/nsaa069 is OK
- 10.1007/s41109-021-00429-9 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05116 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.10 s (673.1 files/s, 167182.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 45 2305 3040 9324
reStructuredText 9 209 131 320
TeX 1 14 0 147
make 1 28 6 143
Markdown 2 37 0 101
HTML 1 41 0 99
YAML 4 25 10 92
TOML 1 6 0 54
INI 1 0 0 12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 65 2665 3187 10292
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
252 Mikko Kivelä
150 Tarmo Nurmi
21 dataspider
14 Arash Badie-Modiri
3 Kivelä Mikko
2 Corinna Coupette
2 Luiz Irber
1 DaminK
1 Pietro Monticone
1 alexguirre
1 sala515
Paper file info:
📄 Wordcount for paper.md
is 1215
✅ The paper includes a Statement of need
section
License info:
🟡 License found: GNU General Public License v3.0
(Check here for OSI approval)
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
👋 @ClaudMor, @pitmonticone, and @nwlandry - Thanks for agreeing to review this submission. This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.
As you can see above, you each should use the command @editorialbot generate my checklist
to create your review checklist. @editorialbot commands need to be the first thing in a new comment.
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, reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#6930
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 either 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 (@danielskatz) if you have any questions/concerns.
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@ercco<!--end-author-handle-- (Tarmo Nurmi) Repository: https://github.com/mnets/pymnet Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): publication Version: 1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@danielskatz<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @ClaudMor, @pitmonticone, @nwlandry 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
@ClaudMor & @pitmonticone & @nwlandry, 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 @danielskatz 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 @pitmonticone
📝 Checklist for @nwlandry
📝 Checklist for @ClaudMor