Closed whedon closed 5 years ago
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @moonso it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper :tada:.
:star: Important :star:
If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿
To fix this do the following two things:
For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
@whedon commands
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
@moonso, please read the instructions on this issue, you are now the reviewer for this JOSS paper, let me know if anything is unclear about how to proceed with it :)
@whedon commands
Here are some things you can ask me to do:
# List Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands
# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors
# List of reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers
# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf
🚧 🚧 🚧 Experimental Whedon features 🚧 🚧 🚧
# Compile the paper from a custom git branch
@whedon generate pdf from branch custom-branch-name
Hi @brainstorm ! Thanks for asking me to review, I will do my best here. To start with I have a few questions:
The theory and real world use of this project are a bit over my expertise. When I read the reviewer guidelines it is mostly about testing the functionality of the package so I guess this is my focus?
When I post issues in the package should I use some special words to indicate that I am a reviewer? In this case the LICENCE does not follow any of the approved ones as far as I can tell. Not sure how to communicate that in the issue.
Thx!
Yes, that's right @moonso, your overall task (TL;DR'd) here is to validate the operation/usefulness/completeness of this package.
I already assigned you as a reviewer, so whedon, our friendly bot knows you already, no worries ;)
@schalkdaniel, as @moonso points out, you should use a valid, OSI approved LICENSE.
@moonso You can move on into reviewing the other points while the author addresses things. Thanks a lot for helping out JOSS! ;)
Hi @moonso @brainstorm, I have added another file LICENSE.md
containing the plain text of the MIT license. The file LICENSE
is required by CRAN and should just include the year and copyright holder (if I understood that correctly).
Weird, are you sure @schalkdaniel?:
https://cran.r-project.org/web/licenses/
According to:
https://cran.r-project.org/doc/contrib/Leisch-CreatingPackages.pdf
The format you mention seems to belong to DESCRIPTION
?
Sure, I just find it confusing to have two LICENSE(.md)
files, but fair enough, @moonso, proceed with the other aspects of this JOSS paper whenever you can, thanks again for the efforts! ;)
Hi @schalkdaniel @brainstorm . I'm done with the review now, nice job @schalkdaniel 😸 . The documentation is clear and comprehensive, examples could be followed. I went through a little installation hell, nice to see that it exists in R to 😛 , it had nothing to do with this package though. It was to install 'devtools' on my Mac OS.
My only remark is the contribution of the co-authors. Thomas Janek has contributed a fairly small part of the code compare to the main author. Also it is unclear how Bernd Bischl have contributed, I guess he is the PI but I think it should be stated somewhere how this person have contributed.
Again good job!
Best
/Måns
Hi @moonso, thanks for your effort. :+1:
Yeah, installing devtools
is not that straight forward. But I hope the package is on CRAN soon and then (hopefully) easier to install. :smile:
Regarding the contribution of the authors: The project has started as master thesis and will probably go on and on. Janek and Bernd give much input on general principles like theory, software design, and many other important things that are not directly visible. Janek also developed main parts of the R API.
I don't know where it is best to mention their contribution. Do you have any preferences?
I understand. It's a question for @brainstorm
@arfon Do we have any established policies for contributions that are not reflected/seen on github?
Other than that, this is a thumbs up submission, thanks everyone! 👍
@arfon Do we have any established policies for contributions that are not reflected/seen on github?
Ultimately, authorship is left up to the authors but we have some guidelines here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html#authorship
Alright, nothing seems off as far as I can see regarding authorship then and the author stated publicly who contributed where.
@brainstorm I have added a file CONTRIBUTORS.md
and linked on this file from the Readme.
@schalkdaniel Could you please make a tarball and push it on Zenodo so we can attach a DOI to it?
@brainstorm Sure, the link is https://zenodo.org/record/1451302#.W7sPNXUzan8
@whedon set 10.2402/compboost.0.1.0 as archive
OK. 10.2402/compboost.0.1.0 is the archive.
@whedon set https://doi.org/10.2402/compboost.0.1.0 as archive
OK. 10.2402/compboost.0.1.0 is the archive.
@schalkdaniel - it doesn't look like https://doi.org/10.2402/compboost.0.1.0
resolves yet?
@arfon - I have no idea why it does not work yet. I have asked the Zenodo support what I could do to get it work. I will let you know here as soon as I have a response.
@arfon - I have uploaded a new version. The archive is: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1460435
The problem was that zenodo does not register custom dois. Sorry for that.
@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.1460435 as archive
OK. 10.5281/zenodo.1460435 is the archive.
@moonso - many thanks for your review here and to @brainstorm for editing this submission ✨
@schalkdaniel - your paper is now accepted into JOSS and your DOI is https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00967 :zap: :rocket: :boom:
:tada::tada::tada: Congratulations on your paper acceptance! :tada::tada::tada:
If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:
Markdown:
[![DOI](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00967/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00967)
HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00967">
<img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00967/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>
reStructuredText:
.. image:: http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00967/status.svg
:target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00967
This is how it will look in your documentation:
We need your help!
Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:
Hi @arfon, is it possible to make a small change to the paper? I (stupidly) used a wrong latex symbol and didn't recognize it during the review process. Instead of \geq
it should be \gg
.
It would be really great if I could update the paper with the correct symbol.
Thanks for your efforts!
It would be really great if I could update the paper with the correct symbol.
Sure thing. Please go ahead and push the fix to the master
branch of your repository and we can recompile the paper.
Thanks! @arfon I have pushed the fix to the master. :-)
Thanks! @arfon I have pushed the fix to the master. :-)
OK, I've updated the paper. This sometimes take a few hours to update on the live site because of caching.
Submitting author: @schalkdaniel (Daniel Schalk) Repository: https://github.com/schalkdaniel/compboost Version: v0.1.0 Editor: @brainstorm Reviewer: @moonso Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1460435
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) 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
@moonso, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @brainstorm know.
✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨
Review checklist for @moonso
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
paper.md
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?