Closed editorialbot closed 3 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
- 10.3389/friot.2022.1073780 is OK
- 10.1186/s40537-019-0268-2 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Coroutines (C++20)
INVALID DOIs
- None
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.05 s (2707.6 files/s, 205715.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C++ 50 1131 552 3642
C/C++ Header 49 553 414 1483
Swift 4 112 36 499
Markdown 10 249 0 490
YAML 13 95 10 485
Lua 6 64 24 287
Python 3 50 37 157
TeX 1 2 0 28
XML 1 0 0 9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 137 2256 1073 7080
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
1092 Aidan Sun
33 AidanSun05
Paper file info:
š Wordcount for paper.md
is 577
ā
The paper includes a Statement of need
section
License info:
š” 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:
@harshadjs and @wob86 - Thank you 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 mentioned above, you can use the command @editorialbot generate my checklist to create your review 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 (https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html)
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 https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6964 so that a link is created to this thread for visibility. 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 you require additional time. We can also use editorialbot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period.
Please feel free to ping me (@mahfuz05062) if you have any questions/concerns.
Hi, @wob86 and @harshadjs - a quick check-in. We aim to have the reviews done within 4 weeks. Let me know if I can facilitate the process in any way. Thanks!
@mahfuz05062 thanks for checking in! I have started my review and will get back with feedback here.
@AidanSun05, can you take a look at https://github.com/WhaleConnect/whaleconnect/issues/3? I'll try different OS meanwhile for testing.
@harshadjs Thank you for letting me know about the problem. I've responded in the issue you opened.
@mahfuz05062 thanks for checking in! I have started my review and will get back with feedback here.
@AidanSun05, can you take a look at WhaleConnect/whaleconnect#3? I'll try different OS meanwhile for testing.
Thanks @harshadjs ; please keep up the progress on your review!! @wob86 I don't see much progress in your case; please let me know if you need more time for your review.
Hello @AidanSun05, the overall paper and project looks great!
This paper presents WhaleConnect, a cross-platform async communication tool. Async communication is efficient and more performant that synchronous communication. However, due to complexity and high variance of OS-native async communication APIs, it has generally been harder for applications to use the APIs. WhaleConnect provides a tool that provides the ability for different OSes to communicate with each other over various protocols, using efficient async communication stack on respective OSes.
Could you please add following missing items on the repository?
Also, in general, have you considered releasing your tool also as a library? If done so, other researches can leverage WhaleConnect library for implementing communication tools on top. Providing a tool is great! Providing a library would be even better! Something to consider, but not needed for the paper review.
@harshadjs Thank you for your feedback! I added the example you mentioned in the usage documentation and a section about WhaleConnect's design goals and target audience in the main readme.
In the references section of the paper, I added citations to the documentation for the async APIs that WhaleConnect uses.
Thanks for the suggestion to release WhaleConnect as something that others can build upon! A library sounds like an excellent option, and I would like to incorporate this in a future release. I will also expand on API documentation during that time.
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@mahfuz05062 sorry for delay in updates Paper is well written and project is very interesting. I have only one issue which I have raised and linked.
Thanks
@wob86 Thanks for your review! I've modified the paper accordingly.
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Thanks for handling the feedback, the review from my end is now complete. @mahfuz05062 is there anything else I need to do?
Thanks for handling the feedback, the review from my end is now complete. @mahfuz05062 is there anything else I need to do?
Nope, you are good. Thanks for completing the review! I will wait for @wob86 to complete his review and then list the next steps.
Thanks for fixing the issue, review from me is now complete. @mahfuz05062 Thanks
@editorialbot set <DOI here> as archive
@editorialbot set <version here> as version
@editorialbot generate pdf
@editorialbot check references
and ask author(s) to update as needed@editorialbot recommend-accept
@wob86 and @harshadjs , thank you for completing your reviews. @AidanSun05 can you make sure to complete the post-review tasks from above? Thanks!
@mahfuz05062 Thank you for the information. I have completed the author tasks:
v1.0.2
.10.5281/zenodo.13328366
.@mahfuz05062 Thank you for the information. I have completed the author tasks:
- The author list in the paper is correct.
- I made a new release:
v1.0.2
.- The DOI of the Zenodo archive is
10.5281/zenodo.13328366
.- The title and author list in the archive are correct.
- The license in the archive is correct.
Thanks! I will go over my checklist soon.
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Hi @AidanSun05,
Can you take care of the following:
Statement of need
. Specifically, I would suggest to re-write it in simpler sentences and fix the usage of semicolons in the 3rd and 4th sentences.I will go over the text again once you are done with these. Thanks!
@mahfuz05062 Thanks, I have made the changes you suggested.
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.13328366 as archive
Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.13328366
@editorialbot set v1.0.2 as version
Done! version is now v1.0.2
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
ā
OK DOIs
- 10.3389/friot.2022.1073780 is OK
- 10.1186/s40537-019-0268-2 is OK
š” SKIP DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: I/O Completion Ports
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Mac OS X Manual Page For kqueue(2)
- No DOI given, and none found for title: IOBluetooth
- No DOI given, and none found for title: liburing library for io_uring
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Coroutines (C++20)
ā MISSING DOIs
- None
ā INVALID DOIs
- None
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
ā
OK DOIs
- 10.3389/friot.2022.1073780 is OK
- 10.1186/s40537-019-0268-2 is OK
š” SKIP DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: I/O Completion Ports
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Mac OS X Manual Page For kqueue(2)
- No DOI given, and none found for title: IOBluetooth
- No DOI given, and none found for title: liburing library for io_uring
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Coroutines (C++20)
ā MISSING DOIs
- None
ā INVALID DOIs
- None
:wave: @openjournals/csism-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.
Check final proof :point_right::page_facing_up: Download article
If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/5821, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept
š @AidanSun05 - as the track chair, I'll next proofread the submission and let you know if anything else is needed on your side, likely in the next few hours
š @AidanSun05 - I've suggested some small changes for the references in https://github.com/WhaleConnect/whaleconnect/pull/5 - please merge this, or let me know what you disagree with, then we can proceed.
@danielskatz Thanks! I agree with the changes so I've merged the pull request.
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@AidanSun05<!--end-author-handle-- (Aidan Sun) Repository: https://github.com/WhaleConnect/whaleconnect Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper Version: v1.0.2 Editor: !--editor-->@mahfuz05062<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @harshadjs, @wob86 Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.13328366
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
@harshadjs & @wob86, 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 @mahfuz05062 know.
āØ 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 āØ
Checklists
š Checklist for @wob86
š Checklist for @harshadjs