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
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.31 s (1312.0 files/s, 352583.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVG 251 0 0 72564
R 100 2827 7316 18046
Markdown 31 587 0 4019
Rmd 6 251 619 562
XML 2 0 3 456
TeX 2 27 0 369
YAML 7 46 19 226
make 1 20 1 72
CSS 1 0 0 4
Sass 1 0 0 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 402 3758 7958 96319
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
2270 Gavin Simpson
150 Gavin L. Simpson
25 runner
24 gavinsimpson
5 Henrik Singmann
3 Lars Dalby
1 David Lawrence Miller
1 DavisVaughan
1 John Muschelli
Paper file info:
📄 Wordcount for paper.md
is 2636
✅ The paper includes a Statement of need
section
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/j.csda.2012.01.026 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1467-9868.2010.00749.x is OK
- 10.1080/01621459.2016.1180986 is OK
- 10.1007/s11222-019-09864-2 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v080.i01 is OK
- 10.7717/peerj.6876 is OK
- 10.3389/fevo.2018.00149 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v059.i10 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4 is OK
- 10.1007/BFb0086566 is OK
- 10.32614/rj-2018-009 is OK
- 10.1201/9780429459016 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3327195 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.10782896 is OK
- 10.1111/1467-9868.00374 is OK
- 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1983.tb01239.x is OK
- 10.1214/AOS/1176349743 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with ...
- 10.1201/9780203753781-6 may be a valid DOI for title: Generalized Additive Models
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Bayesian views of generalized additive modelling
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A practical guide to splines
- 10.32614/cran.package.gjrm may be a valid DOI for title: GJRM: Generalised Joint Regression Modelling
- No DOI given, and none found for title: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Comp...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: R for data science: Import, tidy, transform, visua...
- 10.1214/aoms/1177697089 may be a valid DOI for title: A Correspondence Between Bayesian Estimation on St...
- 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1985.tb01327.x may be a valid DOI for title: Some Aspects of the Spline Smoothing Approach to N...
INVALID DOIs
- None
License info:
🟡 License found: Other
(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:
@dill, @vankesteren, @gavinsimpson this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here (and on issues/prs on the submitted repository) from now on.
@dill, @vankesteren, as reviewers, the first step for each of you 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#6962 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 (@lrnv) if you have any questions/concerns.
@editorialbot add @njtierney as reviewer
@njtierney added to the reviewers list!
@njtierney there you go ! Look at the instructions that i wrote for other reviewers in this thread (which is now the review thread, the other one should stay closed up), nice to have you onboard too !
In terms of conflict of interest: I've worked with @gavinsimpson several times, having written a paper together and taught two courses. I've also made a contribution to gratia
. I don't feel like this will have a material impact on my ability to review the paper -- I'm invested in the package being the best it can be, this requires constructive criticism.
@dill, Yes, I think we discussed this already in the pre-review, and decided it was fine.
Comments on the paper are given in https://github.com/gavinsimpson/gratia/issues/296.
Great! Just wanted to make sure everything was above board here :)On 15 Jul 2024, at 08:23, Oskar Laverny @.***> wrote: @dill, Yes, I think we discussed this already in the pre-review, and decided it was fine.
—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
I have finished my review and added my comment in the two issues mentioned above. I will update my checklist as the comments are resolved.
Sorry for the late reply here, I concluded my review with comments listed above in the gratia
repo. Once those are resolved, I'm happy with the package!
@njtierney, did you have the time to take a look at the package yet?
@gavinsimpson, how is the review going so far? It looks like the discussions are extensive and interesting from here, but I wanted to ask your opinion!
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@gavinsimpson<!--end-author-handle-- (Gavin L. Simpson) Repository: https://github.com/gavinsimpson/gratia Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-paper Version: v0.9.2 Editor: !--editor-->@lrnv<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @dill, @vankesteren, @njtierney 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
@dill & @vankesteren, 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 @lrnv 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 @dill
📝 Checklist for @njtierney
📝 Checklist for @vankesteren