Open editorialbot opened 5 days ago
editorialbot
commented
5 days 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 commandsFor example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
@editorialbot generate pdfReference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
✅ OK DOIs
- 10.1016/j.prro.2021.02.003 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2211.02701 is OK
- 10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001 is OK
- 10.1158/0008-5472.can-18-0125 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106236 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-023-41475-w is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmir.2024.101745 is OK
🟡 SKIP DOIs
- None
❌ MISSING DOIs
- None
❌ INVALID DOIs
- 10.21105/joss.04675 is INVALID
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.02 s (1016.4 files/s, 95061.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 13 294 130 925
Markdown 3 67 0 218
TeX 1 7 0 93
YAML 2 6 0 37
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 19 374 130 1273
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Commit count by author:
119 Asim Shrestha
33 Fereshteh Yousefirizi
27 Adam Watkins
9 Adam
5 Zhack47
4 ThomasBudd
4 zhack47
3 Adam Zyzik
3 Pedro Esquinas
2 Carlos F. Uribe
2 Pedro
2 Robin Hegering
2 asim-shrestha
2 igorhlx
1 Maxence Larose
1 Phillip Chlap
1 Samuel Ouellet
1 Tom RobertsPaper file info:
📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1722
✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section
editorialbot
commented
5 days ago License info:
✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)
editorialbot
commented
5 days ago :point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
adamltyson
commented
5 days ago @pchlap, @suyashkumar, @xtie97, this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.
As a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering:
@editorialbot generate my checklistas the top of a new comment in this thread.
These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains 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#7361 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.
Hardware submissions can be tricky to review, as not all reviewers will necessarily be able to review all functionality. I hope with three reviewers we can cover anything. However, if there are aspects of the submission you can't review, please let me know.
We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if any of you require some more time. We can also use EditorialBot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.
Please feel free to ping me (@adamltyson) if you have any questions/concerns.
adamltyson
commented
5 days ago @qurit-frizi just so that all outstanding comments are in the same thread, could you take a look at the invalid DOI, and see if the word count can be cut a bit? Thanks!
pchlap
commented
5 days ago
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@qurit-frizi<!--end-author-handle-- (Fereshteh Yousefi Rizi) Repository: https://github.com/qurit/rt-utils Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): development Version: V1.2.0 Editor: !--editor-->@adamltyson<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @pchlap, @suyashkumar, @xtie97 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
@pchlap & @suyashkumar & @xtie97, 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 @adamltyson 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 @pchlap