Closed editorialbot closed 3 weeks 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):
β
OK DOIs
- 10.1051/0004-6361:20010923 is OK
π‘ SKIP DOIs
- None
β MISSING DOIs
- None
β INVALID DOIs
- None
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.15 s (664.6 files/s, 364837.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JavaScript 32 6503 6346 24201
HTML 28 2413 47 6557
SVG 1 0 0 2671
CSS 11 699 116 2471
reStructuredText 13 585 240 1397
Python 12 291 649 641
Markdown 2 34 0 72
YAML 1 1 4 19
TeX 1 0 0 15
make 1 4 6 10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 102 10530 7408 38054
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
15 Romain Thomas
Paper file info:
π Wordcount for paper.md
is 656
β
The paper includes a Statement of need
section
License info:
π‘ 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:
@astrom-tom
Excellent submission and a great addition to the community!
A bit of feedback:
NO WAY I will do it :) thanks @EdwinB12
@EdwinB12 This is all done. You can close the issue
Excellent, thanks. I am happy for this to be published!
@EdwinB12 - would you recommend we publish the submission in JOSS?
Yes :)
@Romain-Thomas-Shef βΒ 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:
Zenodo: 10.5281/zenodo.2538444
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.2538444 as archive
Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.2538444
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
β
OK DOIs
- 10.1051/0004-6361:20010923 is OK
π‘ SKIP DOIs
- None
β MISSING DOIs
- None
β INVALID DOIs
- None
: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/5847, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept
@editorialbot reject
no ill intent...
Paper rejected.
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@astrom-tom<!--end-author-handle-- (Romain Thomas) Repository: https://github.com/Romain-Thomas-Shef/dfitspy_RSECon24 Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: 20.4.1 Editor: !--editor-->@arfon<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: !--reviewers-list-->@edwinb12<!--end-reviewers-list-- Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.2538444
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
@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:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @arfon 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 @EdwinB12