Open editorialbot opened 2 weeks ago
editorialbot
commented
2 weeks 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 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
- 10.1002/fee.2472 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rse.2007.01.016 is OK
- 10.1080/01431160500034086 is OK
- 10.1364/oe.18.026313 is OK
- 10.1364/ao.38.007442 is OK
- 10.3389/fenvs.2021.674247 is OK
- 10.1029/2011jc007395 is OK
- 10.1029/98jc02160 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rse.2009.11.022 is OK
- 10.1029/98jc02160 is OK
- 10.1364/ao.39.003582 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rse.2007.01.016 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rse.2009.11.022 is OK
🟡 SKIP DOIs
- None
❌ MISSING DOIs
- None
❌ INVALID DOIs
- None
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.05 s (370.8 files/s, 151414.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 11 851 1278 2667
Markdown 2 93 0 237
Jupyter Notebook 1 0 1880 229
YAML 2 1 4 55
Dockerfile 1 6 12 13
TeX 1 12 0 13
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 18 963 3174 3214
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Commit count by author:
178 aewindle110
48 Patrick Gray
19 Anna Windle
4 Greg Silsbe
1 rootPaper file info:
📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 2973
✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section
editorialbot
commented
2 weeks ago License info:
✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)
editorialbot
commented
2 weeks ago :point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
kthyng
commented
2 weeks ago Hi @aewindle110 and thanks for your submission! I am looking for some specific items to make sure your submission fits our requirements at a high level (not at the more detailed review level) before moving on to finding an editor or putting this on our waitlist if no relevant editors are available. I'll comment over time as I have a chance to go through them:
In the meantime, please take a look at the comments above ⬆️ from the editorialbot to address any DOI, license, or paper issues if you're able (there may not be any), or suggest reviewers. For reviewers, please suggest 5 reviewers from the database listed above or your own (non-conflicted) extended network. Their github handles are most useful to receive but please don't use "@" to reference them since it will prematurely ping them.
kthyng
commented
2 weeks ago @aewindle110
@editorialbot check repository though note it needs to be the first item in a comment to run correctly. Note that you could move some of this to your docs if you create some.
patrickcgray
commented
1 week ago @editorialbot check repository
editorialbot
commented
1 week ago Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.05 s (377.9 files/s, 154548.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 11 851 1278 2667
Markdown 2 100 0 240
Jupyter Notebook 1 0 1880 229
YAML 2 1 4 55
Dockerfile 1 6 12 13
TeX 1 12 0 13
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 18 970 3174 3217
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Commit count by author:
178 aewindle110
48 Patrick Gray
20 Anna Windle
4 Greg Silsbe
1 rootPaper file info:
📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1453
✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section
editorialbot
commented
1 week ago License info:
✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)
aewindle110
commented
1 week ago Hi Kristen,
Thank you for your prompt attention to our submission!
Anna
On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 2:42 PM Kristen Thyng @.***> wrote:
@aewindle110 https://github.com/aewindle110
- Do you have any docs? I see a tutorial notebook referenced in your paper — this would be a great candidate to move to something like hosted docs in readthedocs, as a suggestion.
- Do you have tests so users (and you) can verify the software is running correctly?
- Please reduce to length of your paper to up to about 1000 words (currently 2973 words). Paper format information here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/paper.html. You can check paper length (and a few other items) with the command @editorialbot check repository though note it needs to be the first item in a comment to run correctly. Note that you could move some of this to your docs if you create some.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/7423#issuecomment-2463070430, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKBLXNFM6FOTBWL7LLCLYFDZ7O7BZAVCNFSM6AAAAABRES74Y2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDINRTGA3TANBTGA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
aewindle110
commented
1 week ago We would like to propose the following JOSS reviewers:
https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/reviewers/3081 https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/reviewers/4279 https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/reviewers/2570
As well as Jessie Turner (jturner@uconn.edu) and Henry Houskeeper (henryhouskeeper)
kthyng
commented
1 week ago @aewindle110 Thanks for your responses.
We don't have an official docs for DroneWQ since we would like this to be interactive and prefer to just use a notebook as an example workflow.
Having your notebooks as notebooks (as opposed to also compiling them into html to add to hosted docs like in readthedocs) should be a separate decision from having docs, and you do really need to have docs to support your software and any users that would want to use it. Docs can have different forms, however, this submission needs more than it has presently. For example, I see that some but not all functions has doc strings, and those that have doc strings are short. I can provide some links to resources if that would be helpful.
We have included text in the README and notebook that a test dataset is available on Zenodo. That is what the primary_demo.ipynb uses.
Please be more obvious about testing for the user in your readme (or whatever is ultimately your docs).
We have shortened the paper.md to 1453 words and moved a lot of the other important details to the README. Is this okay or should we remove more text on the Background/Theory?
No please remove more to get down to about 1000 words.
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@aewindle110<!--end-author-handle-- (Anna Windle) Repository: https://github.com/aewindle110/DroneWQ Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main Version: v1.0.0 Editor: Pending Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng
Status
Status badge code:
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @aewindle110. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
@aewindle110 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: