[PRE REVIEW]: PyExperimenter: Easily distribute experiments and track results

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @tornede (Tanja Tornede)
Repository: https://github.com/tornede/py_experimenter
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): develop
Version: 1.1.0
Editor: @timtroendle
Reviewers: @ArsamAryandoust, @schnorr
Managing EiC: George K. Thiruvathukal

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/dcf48ed122c5f78cf16057a1897b90c7"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/dcf48ed122c5f78cf16057a1897b90c7/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/dcf48ed122c5f78cf16057a1897b90c7/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/dcf48ed122c5f78cf16057a1897b90c7)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @tornede. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@tornede if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, 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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.05 s (890.1 files/s, 93084.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          17            430            284           1835
Markdown                         4             84              0            258
reStructuredText                10            160             74            213
TeX                              1             11              0            188
Jupyter Notebook                 2              0            515            138
YAML                             3              4             13             96
JSON                             3              0              0             90
TOML                             1              3              0             46
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            43            704            894           2899
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1038

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.6536395 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7264816 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.25080/shinma-7f4c6e7-008 may be a valid DOI for title: The sacred infrastructure for computational research

INVALID DOIs

- None

[tornede]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @tornede, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

[tornede]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[tornede]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.6536395 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7264816 is OK
- 10.25080/shinma-7f4c6e7-008 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[tornede]

We suggest the following reviewers from your list of potential reviewers:

• canimus
• moiren
• matthewbeleck
• dleske

[arfon]

@tornede – apologies for the slow progress here – thanks for your submission to JOSS. We're currently managing a large backlog of submissions and the editor most appropriate for your area is already rather busy.

For now, we will need to waitlist this paper and process it as the queue reduces. Thanks for your patience!

[arfon]

@editorialbot invite @timtroendle as editor

👋 @timtroendle – would you be willing to edit this submission for JOSS?

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[timtroendle]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @timtroendle is now the editor

[timtroendle]

@arfon , happy to take this over.

👋 @tornede, I will be editing your submission.

[timtroendle]

👋 @canimus, @dleske & @allenzhu, would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[timtroendle]

👋 @moiren & @matthewbeleck, would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[timtroendle]

👋 @tupi & @schnorr, would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[timtroendle]

@editorialbot add @ArsamAryandoust as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@ArsamAryandoust added to the reviewers list!

[timtroendle]

Thank you @ArsamAryandoust for agreeing to review this submission.

@tornede, I am still searching for more reviewers and will update you here once we can proceed.

[ArsamAryandoust]

Hey Tim. How do I submit a revision comment?

[timtroendle]

Hi @ArsamAryandoust, sorry for being unclear on this. You will receive clearer instructions once the review started. There will be a checklist for you to go through and you can then send smaller comments in the (yet-to-be-opened) review issue or open issues in the repository of PyExperimenter.

All of this will be done once the review started. Before, I am looking for at least one other reviewer.

[ArsamAryandoust]

okay cool. Waiting for it.

[schnorr]

Hi @timtroendle, I'll be happy to review. I'll wait for further details.

[timtroendle]

That's great @schnorr . Thanks for letting us know.

[timtroendle]

@editorialbot add @schnorr as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@schnorr added to the reviewers list!

[timtroendle]

With two reviewers, we can now start the review.

[timtroendle]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #5149.