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
- 10.1093/mnras/staa3202 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00388 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty2672 is OK
- 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 is OK
- 10.1145/235815.235821 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ace976 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: SuperFreq: Numerical determination of fundamental ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Hierarchical Data Format, version 5
INVALID DOIs
- None
@nstarman, @TomWagg β This is the review thread for the paper. All of our correspondence will happen here from now on. Thanks again for agreeing to participate!
π Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above, and generate your checklists by commenting @editorialbot generate my checklist
on this issue ASAP. 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, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#7009
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 the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks but please try to make a start ahead of this as JOSS reviews are by their nature iterative and any early feedback you may be able to provide to the author will be very helpful in meeting this schedule. Please get your review started as soon as possible!
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.03 s (1390.7 files/s, 149978.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 18 450 830 1646
Markdown 16 390 0 906
YAML 5 17 12 192
TeX 1 11 0 160
TOML 1 7 0 70
INI 1 4 0 19
JavaScript 1 1 0 15
CSS 1 3 0 12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 44 883 842 3020
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
76 ilikecubesnstuff
3 michael-petersen
1 Subhadeep Sarkar
Paper file info:
π Wordcount for paper.md
is 1230
β
The paper includes a Statement of need
section
License info:
β
License found: MIT License
(Valid open source OSI approved license)
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Hi @ilikecubesnstuff! I would love to continue reviewing, but https://github.com/ilikecubesnstuff/commensurability/issues/18 is a blocker to exactly reproducing the results. If you could post a fix in that Issue thread, even before merging a full PR, that would be appreciated. Thanks!
Hi @nstarman, thank you for letting me know! I will respond to the issue later today. However, I will be very busy over the next 2 weeks, so I cannot guarantee any pull requests until September at least.
If any further issues block your review progress, feel free to notify me and I will respond ASAP!
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@ilikecubesnstuff<!--end-author-handle-- (Subhadeep Sarkar) Repository: https://github.com/ilikecubesnstuff/commensurability Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss Version: v1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@dfm<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @nstarman, @TomWagg 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
@nstarman & @TomWagg, 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 @dfm 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 @nstarman
π Checklist for @TomWagg