[REVIEW]: dfitspy: a dfits and fitsort implementation in Python

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@astrom-tom@arfon@edwinb12<!--end-reviewers-list-- Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.2538444

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ed5f5dc5d87c18820137b22668529ecc"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ed5f5dc5d87c18820137b22668529ecc/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ed5f5dc5d87c18820137b22668529ecc/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ed5f5dc5d87c18820137b22668529ecc)

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

@edwinb12, 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:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @arfon 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 @EdwinB12

editorialbot commented 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

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1051/0004-6361:20010923 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- None

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.16 s (647.4 files/s, 355368.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JavaScript                      32           6503           6346          24201
HTML                            28           2413             47           6562
SVG                              1              0              0           2671
CSS                             11            699            116           2471
reStructuredText                13            586            240           1401
Python                          12            291            649            641
Markdown                         2             22              0             70
YAML                             1              1              4             19
TeX                              1              0              0             15
make                             1              4              6             10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           102          10519           7408          38061
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

     8  Romain Thomas

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 652

🔴 Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU General Public License v3.0 (Check here for OSI approval)

EdwinB12 commented 2 months ago

Review checklist for @EdwinB12

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/Romain-Thomas-Shef/dfitspy_RSECon24?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@astrom-tom) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[ ] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

EdwinB12 commented 2 months ago

@astrom-tom found a couple of issues, here they are:

https://github.com/Romain-Thomas-Shef/dfitspy_RSECon24/issues/2

arfon commented 2 months ago

@astrom-tom – please work on the issues flagged by the reviewer. Thanks!

Romain-Thomas-Shef commented 2 months ago

Done!

arfon commented 2 months ago

@EdwinB12 - Are you happy with the changes made by the author? If so, can you confirm you recommend this paper be published in JOSS?

EdwinB12 commented 2 months ago

Yes I am happy and I recommend it should be published.

arfon commented 2 months ago

@Romain-Thomas-Shef – looks like we're very close to being done here. I will circle back here next week, but in the meantime, please give your own paper a final read to check for any potential typos etc.

After that, could you make a new release of this software that includes the changes that have resulted from this review. Then, please make an archive of the software in Zenodo/figshare/other service and update this thread with the DOI of the archive? For the Zenodo/figshare archive, please make sure that:

The title of the archive is the same as the JOSS paper title
That the authors of the archive are the same as the JOSS paper authors
I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

Romain-Thomas-Shef commented 2 months ago

Zenodo DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2538444

arfon commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot assign 10.5281/zenodo.2538444 as archive

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

arfon commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.2538444 as archive

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.2538444

arfon commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1051/0004-6361:20010923 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- None

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

:wave: @openjournals/aass-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/5796, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

arfon commented 2 months ago

[Closing as this is a demo paper thread]

arfon commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot withdraw

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Paper withdrawn.

openjournals / joss-reviews