Open editorialbot opened 2 hours ago
editorialbot
commented
2 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=0.09 s (3475.8 files/s, 233177.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R 132 1150 3401 7037
CSV 114 0 0 1836
Markdown 18 512 0 1139
Rmd 8 669 1416 961
TeX 2 53 0 502
C/C++ Header 10 164 459 413
YAML 7 38 11 304
C++ 4 15 54 97
SVG 8 0 0 96
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 303 2601 5341 12385
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Commit count by author:
1439 Joe Thorley
262 joethorley
13 Nadine Hussein
7 Sarah Lyons
7 atillmanns
5 stephhazlitt
4 Nan-Hung Hsieh
4 Rebecca Fisher
3 cschwarz-stat-sfu-ca
1 Angeline Tillmanns
1 Hadley Wickham
1 Seb Dalgarno
1 Sergio Ibarra Espinosa
1 Stephanie Hazlitt
1 repo-mountie[bot]Paper file info:
📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1510
✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section
editorialbot
commented
2 hours ago License info:
✅ License found: Apache License 2.0 (Valid open source OSI approved license)
editorialbot
commented
2 hours ago Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
✅ OK DOIs
- 10.1002/etc.5620190233 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02848 is OK
- 10.1002/etc.4373 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v064.i04 is OK
- 10.1007/978-0-387-98141-3 is OK
- 10.1007/b97636 is OK
- 10.1002/9780470094846 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v070.i05 is OK
- 10.1002/etc.4925 is OK
- 10.25845/fm9b-7n28 is OK
- 10.25845/xtvt-yc51 is OK
- 10.23645/epacomptox.11971392.v2 is OK
🟡 SKIP DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Improving Statistical Methods for Modeling Species...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Comp...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Burrlioz 2.0 Manual
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Revised Method for Deriving Australian and New Zea...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Manual on the methodological framework to derive e...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Derivation of Water Quality Guidelines for the Pro...
❌ MISSING DOIs
- 10.32614/cran.package.ssddata may be a valid DOI for title: ssddata: Species Sensitivity Distribution Data
- 10.21105/joss.01082 may be a valid DOI for title: ssdtools: An R package to fit species sensitivity ...
❌ INVALID DOIs
- None
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
fabian-s
commented
2 hours ago 👋🏼 @joethorley @flor14 @nanhung 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 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#7492 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 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 (@fabian-s) if you have any questions/concerns.
fabian-s
commented
2 hours ago @joethorley while we wait for the reviews, could you check the "missing DOIs" the bot found in the comment above and add them to your refs if they are correct?
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@joethorley<!--end-author-handle-- (Joseph Thorley) Repository: https://github.com/bcgov/ssdtools Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-paper Version: v2.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@fabian-s<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @flor14, @nanhung 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
@flor14 & @nanhung, 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 @fabian-s 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
@flor14, please create your checklist typing:
@editorialbot generate my checklist@nanhung, please create your checklist typing:
@editorialbot generate my checklist