Open editorialbot opened 1 month 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
- 10.1016/j.cct.2020.105989 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.7900 is OK
- 10.1080/10543406.2020.1815032 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.8813 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.8776 is OK
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07283-5 is OK
- 10.1186/s13063-020-04285-3 is OK
- 10.2307/2348770 is OK
- 10.1111/1467-985X.00154 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.2022 is OK
- 10.1093/biostatistics/kxr016 is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.geepack is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v015.i02 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.1650 is OK
- 10.2307/2531248 is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.EnvStats is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.rjags is OK
MISSING DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: geepack: Yet Another Package for Generalized Estim...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: JAGS: A Program for Analysis of Bayesian Graphical...
INVALID DOIs
- 10.1111/rssc.1246 is INVALID
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.02 s (993.3 files/s, 250890.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R 10 436 929 2128
Markdown 3 132 0 699
TeX 1 33 1 195
YAML 4 17 9 102
Rmd 1 18 63 37
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 19 636 1002 3161
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
117 Sidi Wang
31 sidiwang
13 Michael Kleinsasser
1 Michael (Mike) Kleinsasser
Paper file info:
π Wordcount for paper.md
is 1205
β
The paper includes a Statement of need
section
License info:
π‘ License found: GNU General Public License v2.0
(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:
I have made some comments in the issue here which address the unchecked points above as well as some other points and (non-mandatory) recommendations
Thanks for your review @aghaynes. @sidiwang, you are welcome to start addressing these issues right away. Please report here when done, or if you have any questions.
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@sidiwang has addressed the vaste majority of my comments and has just one or two minor things to do.
π @ezraporter could you please update us on how it's going with your review?
Sorry for the delay! I'm working on it now and expect to be done tomorrow
My comments have been addressed by @sidiwang. All good on my end
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@sidiwang I've open to pull requests with small suggested changes to the paper. Please ping me here when they're fixed.
Hi @osorensen,
Thank you for your suggestions! I have made the changes. Please take a look and let me know if further adjustments are needed.
Thanks, Sidi
@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):
β
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/j.cct.2020.105989 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.7900 is OK
- 10.1080/10543406.2020.1815032 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.8813 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.8776 is OK
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07283-5 is OK
- 10.1186/s13063-020-04285-3 is OK
- 10.2307/2348770 is OK
- 10.1111/1467-985X.00154 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.2022 is OK
- 10.1093/biostatistics/kxr016 is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.geepack is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v015.i02 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.1650 is OK
- 10.2307/2531248 is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.EnvStats is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.rjags is OK
π‘ SKIP DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: geepack: Yet Another Package for Generalized Estim...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: JAGS: A Program for Analysis of Bayesian Graphical...
β MISSING DOIs
- None
β INVALID DOIs
- 10.1111/rssc.1246 is INVALID
@sidiwang, thanks. It seems like the reference to Chao et al. (2020) has an error in the DOI. The correct DOI is 10.1111/rssc.12406. Could you please update?
@osorensen Just fixed that! Thank you :)
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
β
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/j.cct.2020.105989 is OK
- 10.1111/rssc.12406 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.7900 is OK
- 10.1080/10543406.2020.1815032 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.8813 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.8776 is OK
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07283-5 is OK
- 10.1186/s13063-020-04285-3 is OK
- 10.2307/2348770 is OK
- 10.1111/1467-985X.00154 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.2022 is OK
- 10.1093/biostatistics/kxr016 is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.geepack is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v015.i02 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.1650 is OK
- 10.2307/2531248 is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.EnvStats is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.rjags is OK
π‘ SKIP DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: geepack: Yet Another Package for Generalized Estim...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: JAGS: A Program for Analysis of Bayesian Graphical...
β MISSING DOIs
- None
β INVALID DOIs
- None
@sidiwang
At this point could you:
I can then move forward with recommending acceptance of the submission.
Hi @osorensen,
I just made a tagged release, the version is 0.2.4, and the DOI is 10.5281/zenodo.13370298
I hope everything was done correctly. Please let me know if thereβs anything that needs adjustment.
Thanks, Sidi
@editorialbot set 0.2.4 as version
Done! version is now 0.2.4
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.13370298 as archive
Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.13370298
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
β
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/j.cct.2020.105989 is OK
- 10.1111/rssc.12406 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.7900 is OK
- 10.1080/10543406.2020.1815032 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.8813 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.8776 is OK
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07283-5 is OK
- 10.1186/s13063-020-04285-3 is OK
- 10.2307/2348770 is OK
- 10.1111/1467-985X.00154 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.2022 is OK
- 10.1093/biostatistics/kxr016 is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.geepack is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v015.i02 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.1650 is OK
- 10.2307/2531248 is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.EnvStats is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.rjags is OK
π‘ SKIP DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: geepack: Yet Another Package for Generalized Estim...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: JAGS: A Program for Analysis of Bayesian Graphical...
β MISSING DOIs
- None
β INVALID DOIs
- None
:warning: Error preparing paper acceptance. The generated XML metadata file is invalid.
Element tbody content does not follow the DTD, expecting (tr)+, got ()
@openjournals/dev can you help us with the issue above?
Looks like there's some issue with the generated JATS file: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/blob/bcb1737a9ecc52b458bd1019dd24fa82f36d10e6/joss.06971/paper.jats/10.21105.joss.06971.jats
I think it's the table in the document. @sidiwang β could you please try updating your table to be strictly Markdown formatted one?
@arfon @osorensen Thank you for the feedback. I just made some changes. Could you take a look and see whether it works now? Thanks a lot.
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
β
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/j.cct.2020.105989 is OK
- 10.1111/rssc.12406 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.7900 is OK
- 10.1080/10543406.2020.1815032 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.8813 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.8776 is OK
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07283-5 is OK
- 10.1186/s13063-020-04285-3 is OK
- 10.2307/2348770 is OK
- 10.1111/1467-985X.00154 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.2022 is OK
- 10.1093/biostatistics/kxr016 is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.geepack is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v015.i02 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.1650 is OK
- 10.2307/2531248 is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.EnvStats is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.rjags is OK
π‘ SKIP DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: geepack: Yet Another Package for Generalized Estim...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: JAGS: A Program for Analysis of Bayesian Graphical...
β MISSING DOIs
- None
β INVALID DOIs
- None
:wave: @openjournals/sbcs-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/5843, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@sidiwang<!--end-author-handle-- (Sidi Wang) Repository: https://github.com/sidiwang/snSMART Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): JOSS Version: 0.2.4 Editor: !--editor-->@osorensen<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @aghaynes, @ezraporter Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.13370298
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
@aghaynes & @ezraporter, 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 @osorensen know.
β¨ 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 β¨
Checklists
π Checklist for @aghaynes
π Checklist for @ezraporter