-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 38
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.
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
[REVIEW]: EISPAC - The EIS Python Analysis Code #4914
Comments
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:
For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
|
|
Wordcount for |
|
👋 @nabobalis @PaulJWright Thank you so much for agreeing to review! You can find the article in the comment boxes above ⬆️ , and the software repository linked in the first comment box on this issue. To generate your checklist, use the following command:
You can find reviewer guidelines here, together with all the review criteria. I think you're good to go. Again, JOSS is an open review process and we encourage communication between the reviewers, the submitting author @MJWeberg, and the editor (myself). Please feel free to ask me questions, I'm always around. Can you please respond here (or give a thumbs up) so I know you're in the right place and found all the materials? |
Review checklist for @PaulJWrightConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
Review checklist for @nabobalisConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
CommentsI've gone over the paper, the docs and ran some of the examples. I think Paul covered everything that I saw. For me, this is good to go. |
@mbobra @nabobalis, please let me know your opinions on this, but this open MR seems significant (USNavalResearchLaboratory/eispac#50). I would personally prefer this is merged and tested/documented before any approval. Please let me know if this is out of scope. |
Hello @PaulJWright and @nabobalis, thanks for all the comments and feedback so far! I will work on addressing the issues raised, but I might not have the opportunity to get through all of them today. Please feel free to continue opening issues and/or add follow-up questions, I will answer them as soon as I can. |
Take your time, while it may look like a lot, the majority of changes I have requested should be low-effort. |
|
The paper's PDF and metadata files generation produced some warnings that could prevent the final paper from being published. Please fix them before the end of the review process.
|
👋 @openjournals/aass-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published. Check final proof 👉📄 Download article If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#4249, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command |
Thanks @nabobalis and @PaulJWright for your reviews! Thanks also to @mbobra for editing! I'm going through the final editorial steps and I have just opened a small PR with some edits to the manuscript. Please take a look and then here are the remaining items:
|
Ah sorry! I actually misread the statement. They should be ticked. |
Thanks @nabobalis - no worries at all! Pinging @MJWeberg to take a look at the PR (USNavalResearchLaboratory/eispac#76) and my request above about updating the metadata so that I can finish the final processing! I know it's only been 3 days, but wanted to put this on your radar on a weekday :D |
@dfm, Thanks for the reminder and fixing the typos! We will get the Zenodo title changed as soon as possible (due to organizational policies, I am not the primary owner of the Zenodo archive). |
Zenodo deposit title updated! Please let us know if there are any other edits / changes required. |
@editorialbot recommend-accept |
|
|
👋 @openjournals/aass-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published. Check final proof 👉📄 Download article If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#4270, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command |
@editorialbot accept |
|
Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository. If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file. You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here: CITATION.cff
If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation. |
🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦 |
🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘 |
🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨 Here's what you must now do:
Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team... |
Many thanks to @nabobalis and @PaulJWright for reviewing and to @mbobra for editing! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you!! @MJWeberg — Your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS! ⚡🚀💥 |
🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉 If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:
This is how it will look in your documentation: 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:
|
Submitting author: @MJWeberg (Micah J. Weberg)
Repository: https://github.com/USNavalResearchLaboratory/eispac
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.94.6
Editor: @mbobra
Reviewers: @nabobalis, @PaulJWright
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7949516
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
@nabobalis & @PaulJWright, 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 @mbobra 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 @PaulJWright
📝 Checklist for @nabobalis
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: