Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[REVIEW]: unifir: A Unifying API for Working with Unity in R #4388

Closed
editorialbot opened this issue May 11, 2022 · 24 comments
Closed

[REVIEW]: unifir: A Unifying API for Working with Unity in R #4388

editorialbot opened this issue May 11, 2022 · 24 comments
Assignees
@kyleniemeyer
Labels
accepted C# published Papers published in JOSS R recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. review TeX

Comments

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator

editorialbot commented May 11, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Submitting author: @mikemahoney218 (Michael Mahoney)
Repository: https://github.com/ropensci/unifir
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper
Version: v0.2.0
Editor: @kyleniemeyer
Reviewers: @kyleniemeyer
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.6539478

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/455deba7561f6777691d40c97172887d"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/455deba7561f6777691d40c97172887d/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/455deba7561f6777691d40c97172887d/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/455deba7561f6777691d40c97172887d)

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

@kyleniemeyer, 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:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @kyleniemeyer 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 @kyleniemeyer
@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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 commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

@editorialbot editorialbot mentioned this issue May 11, 2022
Closed
@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author 

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.12 s (628.1 files/s, 55468.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R                               42            455            762           2482
XML                              1              0              2            441
Markdown                         6            102              0            420
C#                              13             57              2            303
YAML                             9             57             14            283
JSON                             1              0              0            240
Rmd                              5            207            802            179
TeX                              1              6              0             74
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            78            884           1582           4422
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author 

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/VRAIS.1993.380793 is OK
- 10.1007/s12144-017-9648-y is OK
- 10.1080/13658816.2020.1830997 is OK
- 10.1007/s42489-020-00069-6 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04060 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apgeog.2019.102102 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jeem.2008.08.002 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Wordcount for paper.md is 1001

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

@kyleniemeyer
Copy link

This is an rOpenSci-associated submission: ropensci/software-review#521

@kyleniemeyer
Copy link

kyleniemeyer commented May 11, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Review checklist for @kyleniemeyer

Conflict of interest

  • I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/ropensci/unifir?
  • License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
  • Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@mikemahoney218) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
  • Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

Functionality

  • Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
  • Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
  • Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
  • Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
  • Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
  • Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
  • Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

  • Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
  • A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
  • Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
  • References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

@kyleniemeyer
Copy link

Hi @mikemahoney218, could you share the Zenodo DOI for the archive of the software? I couldn't easily find it in the rOpenSci review issue.

@mikemahoney218
Copy link

Hi @kyleniemeyer ! I haven't made one yet -- I remembered there was a problem with the Zenodo deposit when I submitted terrainr the last time, but couldn't remember what it was. Happy to make one now!

@kyleniemeyer
Copy link

Ah I see. Yes, please go ahead and archive the software package and let me know the DOI here. The paper looks good, and the review is fast-tracked since it was already reviewed by rOpenSci, so I can go ahead and publish this once I have that.

@mikemahoney218
Copy link

Great, thanks @kyleniemeyer ! Should be archived now at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6539478 .

@kyleniemeyer
Copy link

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.6539478 as archive

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.6539478

@kyleniemeyer
Copy link

@editorialbot recommend-accept

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author 

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author 

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/VRAIS.1993.380793 is OK
- 10.1007/s12144-017-9648-y is OK
- 10.1080/13658816.2020.1830997 is OK
- 10.1007/s42489-020-00069-6 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04060 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apgeog.2019.102102 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jeem.2008.08.002 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

👋 @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#3208

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#3208, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

@editorialbot editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label May 11, 2022
@kyleniemeyer
Copy link

@editorialbot accept

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author 

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

  1. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.04388 joss-papers#3209
  2. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04388
  3. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
  4. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

@editorialbot editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels May 11, 2022
@kyleniemeyer
Copy link

Congratulations @mikemahoney218 on your article's publication in JOSS!

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04388/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04388)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04388">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04388/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04388/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04388

This is how it will look in your documentation:

DOI

We need your help!

The 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:

@mikemahoney218
Copy link

Thank you @kyleniemeyer !

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@kyleniemeyer kyleniemeyer

Labels
accepted C# published Papers published in JOSS R recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. review TeX
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@kyleniemeyer @mikemahoney218 @editorialbot