Open editorialbot opened 3 hours ago
editorialbot
commented
3 hours 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 pdfSoftware report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=1.34 s (134.6 files/s, 685439.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAML 39 374062 43 504544
Python 135 1337 518 4983
Markdown 2 69 0 214
Jupyter Notebook 1 0 30859 61
TeX 1 3 0 31
TOML 1 3 0 27
INI 1 0 0 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 180 375474 31420 509864
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Commit count by author:
95 CDJellen
41 cdjellen
16 Chris Jellen
1 abdu558Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
✅ OK DOIs
- 10.25080/majora-92bf1922-00a is OK
🟡 SKIP DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: NDBC Web Data Guide
- No DOI given, and none found for title: NDBC Active Stations
- No DOI given, and none found for title: NetCDF4 Python Library
❌ MISSING DOIs
- None
❌ INVALID DOIs
- None
Paper file info:
📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 600
✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section
editorialbot
commented
3 hours ago License info:
✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)
cheginit
commented
3 hours ago 👋🏼 @CDJellen, @rwegener2, and @ks905383, this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.
As a reviewer, the first step, as mentioned in the first comment of this issue, is to create a checklist for your review by entering
@editorialbot generate my checklist
as 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#7406 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.
We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please notify me 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 don't hesitate to ping me (@cheginit) if you have any questions/concerns.
editorialbot
commented
3 hours ago :point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
ks905383
commented
3 hours ago
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@CDJellen<!--end-author-handle-- (Chris Jellen) Repository: http://github.com/cdjellen/ndbc-api Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): user/cjellen/joss-paper-submission Version: v2024.08.31.1 Editor: !--editor-->@cheginit<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @rwegener2, @ks905383 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
@rwegener2 & @ks905383, 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 @cheginit 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 @ks905383