Open editorialbot opened 4 days ago
editorialbot
commented
4 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 commandsFor example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
@editorialbot generate pdfSoftware report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.20 s (761.9 files/s, 175110.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 106 4436 10280 16964
CSV 2 0 0 2134
Markdown 19 238 0 810
reStructuredText 21 149 252 177
TeX 1 10 0 95
YAML 3 5 1 47
make 1 4 6 10
XML 1 0 0 4
SVG 1 0 0 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 155 4842 10539 20242
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Commit count by author:
502 Thomas Storek
212 Reding Jeff
149 Felix Rehmann
115 JunsongDu
79 thomas.storek
42 Iris Koester
41 RedingJeff
38 tstorek
21 sbanoeon
13 fabian.wuellhorst
10 Saira Bano
9 FelixStege
9 dnikolay-ebc
6 Alexander
5 Iris Marie Köster
5 Sebastian.Borges
4 Marwa Maghnie
3 Sebastian Blechmann
3 Steffen Vogel
2 Manuel Pitz
2 Martin Altenburger
2 felix.stegemerten
2 tzu-chen.liu
1 FWuellhorst
1 Richard Marston
1 SBlechmann
1 SebastianBorges
1 Stephan
1 cl0-de
1 irismarie
1 j.azzam
1 orange95
1 sb196556Paper file info:
📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 2001
🔴 Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper
editorialbot
commented
4 days ago Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1088/1742-6596/1343/1/012053 is OK
- 10.1088/1742-6596/1343/1/012063 is OK
- 10.18154/RWTH-2022-11779 is OK
- 10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104622 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: FIWARE Catalogue – FIWARE
- No DOI given, and none found for title: OpenAPI Specification
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Pydantic: Data validation using Python type hint
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Unitest: Unit testing framework
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Requests: HTTP for Humans
- No DOI given, and none found for title: FIWARE-NGSI v2 Specification
INVALID DOIs
- None
License info:
✅ License found: BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License (Valid open source OSI approved license)
editorialbot
commented
4 days ago :point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
srmnitc
commented
4 days ago 👋🏼 @djs0109 @DiegoAscanio @abhishektiwari 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 (@srmnitc ) if you have any questions/concerns, thanks again for the submission, and for thr reviews
abhishektiwari
commented
3 days ago
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@djs0109<!--end-author-handle-- (Junsong Du) Repository: https://github.com/RWTH-EBC/FiLiP Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): JOSS_submission Version: v0.3.0 Editor: !--editor-->@srmnitc<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @DiegoAscanio, @abhishektiwari 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
@DiegoAscanio & @abhishektiwari, 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 @srmnitc 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 @abhishektiwari