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=0.10 s (1200.8 files/s, 200900.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 49 3290 1265 7300
Jupyter Notebook 11 0 3903 1329
TeX 4 1 0 1095
JSON 2 0 0 1046
CSV 46 0 0 456
Markdown 2 32 0 77
DOS Batch 1 8 1 26
TOML 1 1 0 21
make 1 4 7 9
YAML 1 4 7 7
reStructuredText 1 6 7 7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 119 3346 5190 11373
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
235 Sinan Özaydın
3 Lu Li
1 Patrice Rey
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1029/2020gc009126 is OK
- 10.1002/2015GC006171 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2011.01.002 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2014.01.010 is OK
- 10.1093/gji/ggw290 is OK
- 10.1093/gji/ggz277 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
Paper file info:
📄 Wordcount for paper.md
is 814
✅ The paper includes a Statement of need
section
License info:
🟡 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:
@kujaku11, @santisoler This is where the review will take place, though as issues arise as you go through your review checklist, please open specific issues in the software repo itself, and link back to this issue to help keep things organized. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!!
@kujaku11 and @santisoler Will you be able to get started on your reviews soon?
@kthyng yes I was planning on have this done by Monday 8/12.
I'll aim to start the review next week. Sorry for the delay.
Thanks!
@kthyng I have conducted my review and left an issue in the pide
package repository.
Overall the package could be a great contribution to the geophysics community. Though there are some key components missing from the package. Namely, tests and documentation. Other issues include installation failed and some of the example notebooks don't run. Once these are implemented pide
will be a strong contribution.
The manuscript was fine, just some minor grammatical suggestions and suggestions to add an example figure from outputs of the program.
Let me know if you need anything else or clarity.
Thanks @kujaku11! @sinanozaydin Should address these comments when possible, and you may need to come back and see how it turns out or have some questions/comments, and for sure do a final check eventually
I think there's significant amount of work in pide
that would make it a very useful tool for geophysical modelling and interpretation. I really appreciate the authors for the time they put into this project and that they made it available under an open-source license.
Currently, there are a few minimum requirements that the submitted article doesn't meet in order to be accepted for publication by JOSS. My major comments are related to:
pide
is designed and find out what tools are available;I provide more details about these and other topics that should be addressed through issues in the upstream repository.
Looking forward to continue the conversation and the review process.
Thanks again to authors for the effort put into this project, and thanks @kthyng for the invitation to review it.
Thanks @santisoler!
When will you be able to start on this round of reviewer comments @sinanozaydin?
Hello @kthyng,
I am starting now. I am going to try to finish it in two weeks otherwise I have to wait a bit since I will be travelling for a while then.
Cheers,
Sinan
@sinanozaydin Ok thanks! If you get enough done before you leave to pass it back to reviewers, that would be useful to communicate about so the process can continue on. Actually, good communication is useful regardless. Thank you!
@sinanozaydin Can we have an update?
Hello @kthyng,
Just got back from travels, I will start working on this week and try to finish it.
Hello @kthyng
I have addressed all the opened issues in the repository.
All the best,
Sinan
Thanks @kthyng for letting us know. I'll go through the replies to my issues and PRs in the next few days.
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@sinanozaydin<!--end-author-handle-- (Sinan Özaydın) Repository: https://github.com/sinanozaydin/pide Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v0.2 Editor: !--editor-->@kthyng<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @kujaku11, @santisoler 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
@kujaku11 & @santisoler, 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 @kthyng 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 @kujaku11
📝 Checklist for @santisoler