Closed editorialbot closed 2 months ago
Hello human, 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 (1303.3 files/s, 183511.4 lines/s)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MATLAB 140 3471 6950 17329
XML 88 0 0 14990
C++ 90 1049 856 3823
Markdown 70 657 0 2489
C/C++ Header 7 436 324 1599
Python 7 414 416 1574
Visual Studio Solution 4 4 4 1006
TeX 1 16 0 179
Windows Module Definition 1 0 0 2
JSON 1 0 0 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 409 6047 8550 42992
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
580 dschodt
91 Hanieh
70 Sandeep
48 sajjad88
28 ellyse-taylor
18 Michael Wester
12 HMFarsibaf
12 kiwibogo
11 Keith Lidke
8 Sandeep Pallikkuth
8 TIRF
7 Keith A. Lidke
5 MohamadFazel
3 kalidke
2 Hanieh Mazloom Farsibaf
2 Sajjad Khan
2 Sheng Liu
1 Ali
1 Gert-Jan Bakker
1 MJWester
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
β
OK DOIs
- 10.1364/OPEX.13.007052 is OK
- 10.1126/science.1127344 is OK
- 10.1038/nmeth929 is OK
- 10.1126/science.1137395 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00815 is OK
- 10.1016/j.bpj.2017.11.2912 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05563 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0203291 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-022-34894-2 is OK
- 10.1002/0471142727.mb1420s92 is OK
π‘ SKIP DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The PYthon Microscopy Environment
β MISSING DOIs
- None
β INVALID DOIs
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2023.113603 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
Paper file info:
π Wordcount for paper.md
is 1124
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:
Five most similar historical JOSS papers:
ImSwitch: Generalizing microscope control in Python
Submitting author: @kasasxav
Handling editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman (Active)
Reviewers: @uellue, @beniroquai, @untzag
Similarity score: 0.7264
Madym: A C++ toolkit for quantitative DCE-MRI analysis
Submitting author: @michaelberks
Handling editor: @emdupre (Active)
Reviewers: @agahkarakuzu, @matteomancini
Similarity score: 0.7060
MAHOS: Measurement Automation Handling and Orchestration System
Submitting author: @ktahar
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @sidihamady, @aquilesC
Similarity score: 0.6887
qMRLab: Quantitative MRI analysis, under one umbrella
Submitting author: @agahkarakuzu
Handling editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman (Active)
Reviewers: @grlee77, @mfroeling, @62442katieb
Similarity score: 0.6872
LiberTEM: Software platform for scalable multidimensional data processing in transmission electron microscopy
Submitting author: @uellue
Handling editor: @majensen (Active)
Reviewers: @alvarolopez, @fedorov
Similarity score: 0.6814
β οΈ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.
@sajjad88, thanks for this submission. I am the AEiC on this track and here to help process the initial steps. Before we proceed, please can you have a look at the following points:
.bib
file, and call @editorialbot check references
here to check them again. CONTRIBUTING.md
file (see here for some examples: https://contributing.md/example/).@editorialbot commands
Hello @sajjad88, here are the things you can ask me to do:
# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands
# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors
# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist
# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch
# Run checks and provide information on the repository and the paper file
@editorialbot check repository
# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references
# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf
# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint
# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers
Names of potential reviewers:
@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman thank you for helping in the initial steps. We have fixed the DOI issues, added documentation and contribution guidelines in main README.md.
When changes are made to the matlab-instrument-class, continuous integration tests are performed on the abstract classes, which are further inherited by the other instruments classes but cannot be applied to any instance class unless the corresponding instrument is actually hooked up.
There is no automatically generated code (e.g., .mlapp) included, such as code from MATLAB App Designer or other GUI creation tools. All of the MATLAB code, including any functions related to user interfaces or graphical components, has been manually written, ensuring that it reflects original contributions and not auto-generated templates or GUI elements. The 17,329 lines of MATLAB code in the report are entirely the result of manual development.
With these changes we created a new release: matlab-instrument-control v0.1.1.
@editorialbot generate pdf
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
β
OK DOIs
- 10.1364/OPEX.13.007052 is OK
- 10.1126/science.1127344 is OK
- 10.1038/nmeth929 is OK
- 10.1126/science.1137395 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00815 is OK
- 10.1016/j.bpj.2017.11.2912 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05563 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0203291 is OK
- 10.1016/j.celrep.2023.113603 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-022-34894-2 is OK
- 10.1002/0471142727.mb1420s92 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4289803 is OK
π‘ SKIP DOIs
- None
β MISSING DOIs
- None
β INVALID DOIs
- None
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@editorialbot invite @adamltyson as editor
Invitation to edit this submission sent!
Five most similar historical JOSS papers:
ImSwitch: Generalizing microscope control in Python
Submitting author: @kasasxav
Handling editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman (Active)
Reviewers: @uellue, @beniroquai, @untzag
Similarity score: 0.7215
Madym: A C++ toolkit for quantitative DCE-MRI analysis
Submitting author: @michaelberks
Handling editor: @emdupre (Active)
Reviewers: @agahkarakuzu, @matteomancini
Similarity score: 0.7113
MAHOS: Measurement Automation Handling and Orchestration System
Submitting author: @ktahar
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @sidihamady, @aquilesC
Similarity score: 0.6886
qMRLab: Quantitative MRI analysis, under one umbrella
Submitting author: @agahkarakuzu
Handling editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman (Active)
Reviewers: @grlee77, @mfroeling, @62442katieb
Similarity score: 0.6884
LiberTEM: Software platform for scalable multidimensional data processing in transmission electron microscopy
Submitting author: @uellue
Handling editor: @majensen (Active)
Reviewers: @alvarolopez, @fedorov
Similarity score: 0.6854
β οΈ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.
@adamltyson would you be able to help edit this one? It may be a tricky one in terms finding reviewers able to test the software that links to/needs particular hardware/instruments.
Hi @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman, yes happy to take this on. I'll see what I can do.
@editorialbot assign @adamltyson as editor
Assigned! @adamltyson is now the editor
@bencardoen, @caldarolamartin, would you be able to review this submission to JOSS?
If you haven't reviewed for JOSS before, we carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues following these guidelines. If you have any questions, let me know.
@adamltyson yes, I'd be happy to
Unfortunately I can't review this at this time.
Best, Martin
Martin Caldarola
On Mon, 16 Sept 2024, 17:19 Ben Cardoen, @.***> wrote:
@adamltyson https://github.com/adamltyson yes, I'd be happy to
β Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/7121#issuecomment-2353221371, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAUGZKWSIFVA2PZ7D5HW52DZW3ZIJAVCNFSM6AAAAABMZ3DBFOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGNJTGIZDCMZXGE . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
Thanks @bencardoen, and no problem at all @caldarolamartin.
@raacampbell has agreed offline to review.
@editorialbot add @bencardoen as reviewer
@bencardoen added to the reviewers list!
@editorialbot add @raacampbell as reviewer
@raacampbell added to the reviewers list!
@editorialbot start review
OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/7275.
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@sajjad88<!--end-author-handle-- (Sajjad Khan) Repository: https://github.com/LidkeLab/matlab-instrument-control Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v0.1.0 Editor: !--editor-->@adamltyson<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @bencardoen, @raacampbell Managing EiC: Kevin M. Moerman
Status
Status badge code:
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @sajjad88. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
@sajjad88 if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.
Editor instructions
The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type: