Open editorialbot opened 1 day ago
editorialbot
commented
1 day 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=0.09 s (2233.5 files/s, 247372.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C/C++ Header 57 1247 2270 6480
C++ 86 1456 1782 6408
Markdown 5 96 0 241
CMake 32 83 269 233
TeX 1 19 0 162
Python 5 57 16 134
YAML 3 12 17 48
Bourne Shell 1 1 1 12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 190 2971 4355 13718
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Commit count by author:
75 rprat-pro
58 Raphaël Prat
16 PRAT Raphael 269144
6 Thierry Carrard
4 Raphael PRAT
3 Thierry CARRARD
1 DONCECCHI Carlo-EliaPaper file info:
📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1615
✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section
editorialbot
commented
1 day ago License info:
✅ License found: Apache License 2.0 (Valid open source OSI approved license)
editorialbot
commented
1 day ago Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
✅ OK DOIs
- 10.1007/978-3-031-50684-0_27 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2021.108171 is OK
- 10.2172/10176421 is OK
- 10.1103/physrev.159.98 is OK
- 10.1504/pcfd.2012.047457 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-69953-0_10 is OK
- 10.1016/j.amc.2017.03.037 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-14313-2_11 is OK
- 10.1145/3225058.3225085 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2020.107177 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2019.107129 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2301.00611 is OK
- 10.1016/c2015-0-01294-1 is OK
- 10.1209/0295-5075/83/14001 is OK
🟡 SKIP DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Simulation of liquids and solids
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Rocakble
❌ MISSING DOIs
- None
❌ INVALID DOIs
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109354 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
jedbrown
commented
1 day ago @vsangelidakis @slamont1 :wave: Welcome to JOSS and thanks for agreeing to review! The comments from @editorialbot above outline the review process, which takes place in this thread (possibly with issues filed in the ExaDEM repository). I'll be watching this thread if you have any questions.
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 this issue 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 a month. Please let me know if you require some more time. We can also use editorialbot to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.
Please feel free to ping me (@jedbrown) if you have any questions/concerns.
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@rprat-pro<!--end-author-handle-- (Raphaël Prat) Repository: https://github.com/Collab4exaNBody/exaDEM Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss_paper Version: v1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@jedbrown<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @vsangelidakis, @slamont1 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
@vsangelidakis & @slamont1, 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 @jedbrown 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
@vsangelidakis, please create your checklist typing:
@editorialbot generate my checklist@slamont1, please create your checklist typing:
@editorialbot generate my checklist