[REVIEW]: CM++ - A Meta-method for Well-Connected Community Detection #6073
Assignees
Labels
accepted
published
Papers published in JOSS
Python
R
recommend-accept
Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS.
review
TeX
Track: 7 (CSISM)
Computer science, Information Science, and Mathematics
Comments
editorialbot
added
Python
R
review
TeX
Track: 7 (CSISM)
|
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 |
|
|
@LuisScoccola, @chryswoods – This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on. Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above. Please create your checklist typing: As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also 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 We aim for the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks but please make a start well ahead of this as JOSS reviews are by their nature iterative and any early feedback you may be able to provide to the author will be very helpful in meeting this schedule. (Noting here that @LuisScoccola mentioned in the pre-review thread that they won't be able to start for a couple of weeks). |
Review checklist for @chryswoodsConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
|
Hi - thanks for your submission. I've been going through the checklist above as part of the review. It's all going well, but I have a few questions / requests.
I recommend adding something like a "quick start" guide or similar, with complete input files for the examples, so that it is easier to get started straight away with the software. While you don't need as much, see here how in my software the user is taken on a journey from seeing if the software has the features they need, then a very simple install guide, then a quick start guide to quickly explore the software (before then more detailed guides and a tutorial). Something like this can really make a difference to a user's experience of the software.
Thanks :-) |
|
Thanks for these very helpful comments Christopher. We will respond ASAP.
George Chacko
…On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 10:56 AM Christopher Woods ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi - thanks for your submission. I've been going through the checklist
above as part of the review. It's all going well, but I have a few
questions / requests.
-
I failed to get this installed on MacOS. I suspect I would also fail
on Windows. I was able to follow the installation instructions on
Linux/aarch64 in a VM, and all of the unit tests passed. Could you update
the requirements to say this requires Linux, or could you do some testing
to get this working on Mac and Windows?
-
Your requirements.txt file is very specific. Is there any way to relax
the version requirements, e.g. to specify dependencies to only their minor
version numbers rather than to their patch version numbers? I worry that
this installation could be very brittle.
-
Could you include example usage in the paper? Or in the documentation?
Could you structure the documentation in docs / README so that it is more
clear where I should start to learn how to use this program? The examples
directory just contains json files, while the command to run in the first
documentation page (python -m hm01.cm -i network.tsv -e clustering.tsv
-c leiden -t 1log10 -n 32 -o output.tsv) gives this error;
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/parallels/mambaforge/envs/review/lib/python3.10/runpy.py", line 196, in _run_module_as_main
return _run_code(code, main_globals, None,
File "/home/parallels/mambaforge/envs/review/lib/python3.10/runpy.py", line 86, in _run_code
exec(code, run_globals)
File "/home/parallels/review/cm_pipeline/hm01/cm.py", line 514, in <module>
entry_point()
File "/home/parallels/review/cm_pipeline/hm01/cm.py", line 510, in entry_point
typer.run(main)
File "/home/parallels/review/cm_pipeline/hm01/cm.py", line 422, in main
assert resolution != -1, "Leiden requires resolution"
AssertionError: Leiden requires resolution
I recommend adding something like a "quick start" guide or similar, with
complete input files for the examples, so that it is easier to get started
straight away with the software. While you don't need as much, see here
<https://sire.openbiosim.org> how in my software the user is taken on a
journey from seeing if the software has the features they need, then a very
simple install guide, then a quick start guide to quickly explore the
software (before then more detailed guides and a tutorial). Something like
this can really make a difference to a user's experience of the software.
-
Could you add some community guidelines as detailed in the checklist
above? I am sorry if I missed them. Feel free to steal from How to ask
for help <https://sire.openbiosim.org/support.html> and Contributing
<https://sire.openbiosim.org/contributing/index.html>.
-
Could you provide the input files so that I can confirm the
performance claims in figure 1? Also, could you change this into a scaling
plot rather than a time to solve plot? (i.e. the speed relative to 1 core
for each core count - ideally a 32-core job would be 32 times faster, but
this would almost never be the case). This would give a better idea of how
the code scales.
Thanks :-)
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#6073 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAVNKTIL5BWYBOBAYXYDWUDYH5G2HAVCNFSM6AAAAAA7UE4E6CVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNBRGIZDKNZTG4>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
A quick update on this. We're making revisions based on your comments and
will update this thread as soon as the guidelines and quick start are
ready. Thank you again. George Chacko
…On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 11:49 AM George Chacko ***@***.***> wrote:
Thanks for these very helpful comments Christopher. We will respond ASAP.
George Chacko
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 10:56 AM Christopher Woods <
***@***.***> wrote:
> Hi - thanks for your submission. I've been going through the checklist
> above as part of the review. It's all going well, but I have a few
> questions / requests.
>
> -
>
> I failed to get this installed on MacOS. I suspect I would also fail
> on Windows. I was able to follow the installation instructions on
> Linux/aarch64 in a VM, and all of the unit tests passed. Could you update
> the requirements to say this requires Linux, or could you do some testing
> to get this working on Mac and Windows?
> -
>
> Your requirements.txt file is very specific. Is there any way to
> relax the version requirements, e.g. to specify dependencies to only their
> minor version numbers rather than to their patch version numbers? I worry
> that this installation could be very brittle.
> -
>
> Could you include example usage in the paper? Or in the
> documentation? Could you structure the documentation in docs / README so
> that it is more clear where I should start to learn how to use this
> program? The examples directory just contains json files, while the command
> to run in the first documentation page (python -m hm01.cm -i
> network.tsv -e clustering.tsv -c leiden -t 1log10 -n 32 -o output.tsv)
> gives this error;
>
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>
> File "/home/parallels/mambaforge/envs/review/lib/python3.10/runpy.py", line 196, in _run_module_as_main
> return _run_code(code, main_globals, None,
>
> File "/home/parallels/mambaforge/envs/review/lib/python3.10/runpy.py", line 86, in _run_code
> exec(code, run_globals)
>
> File "/home/parallels/review/cm_pipeline/hm01/cm.py", line 514, in <module>
> entry_point()
>
> File "/home/parallels/review/cm_pipeline/hm01/cm.py", line 510, in entry_point
> typer.run(main)
>
> File "/home/parallels/review/cm_pipeline/hm01/cm.py", line 422, in main
> assert resolution != -1, "Leiden requires resolution"
>
> AssertionError: Leiden requires resolution
>
> I recommend adding something like a "quick start" guide or similar, with
> complete input files for the examples, so that it is easier to get started
> straight away with the software. While you don't need as much, see here
> <https://sire.openbiosim.org> how in my software the user is taken on a
> journey from seeing if the software has the features they need, then a very
> simple install guide, then a quick start guide to quickly explore the
> software (before then more detailed guides and a tutorial). Something like
> this can really make a difference to a user's experience of the software.
>
> -
>
> Could you add some community guidelines as detailed in the checklist
> above? I am sorry if I missed them. Feel free to steal from How to
> ask for help <https://sire.openbiosim.org/support.html> and
> Contributing <https://sire.openbiosim.org/contributing/index.html>.
> -
>
> Could you provide the input files so that I can confirm the
> performance claims in figure 1? Also, could you change this into a scaling
> plot rather than a time to solve plot? (i.e. the speed relative to 1 core
> for each core count - ideally a 32-core job would be 32 times faster, but
> this would almost never be the case). This would give a better idea of how
> the code scales.
>
> Thanks :-)
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#6073 (comment)>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAVNKTIL5BWYBOBAYXYDWUDYH5G2HAVCNFSM6AAAAAA7UE4E6CVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNBRGIZDKNZTG4>
> .
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
> ***@***.***>
>
|
|
Thanks - and don't worry - there isn't a rush. I've got a lot of leave to use up before Christmas, so it may not be until January that I'll be able to look at the revision. |
|
Thanks for the update @chackoge! |
Review checklist for @LuisScoccolaConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
|
We have made revisions in response to the comments provided by Christopher
Woods. The response is enclosed as a pdf. The changes are visible on the
Github site.
Thanks George Chacko
…On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 5:24 AM LuisScoccola ***@***.***> wrote:
Review checklist for @LuisScoccola <https://github.com/LuisScoccola> Conflict
of interest
- I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy
<https://github.com/openjournals/joss/blob/master/COI.md> 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
- I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct
<https://joss.theoj.org/about#code_of_conduct>.
General checks
- *Repository:* Is the source code for this software available at the
https://github.com/illinois-or-research-analytics/cm_pipeline.git?
- *License:* Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or
COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved
<https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical> software license?
- *Contribution and authorship:* Has the submitting author ***@***.***
<https://github.com/chackoge>) 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
<https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#substantial-scholarly-effort>
- *Data sharing:* If the paper contains original data, data are
accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please
check this item.
- *Reproducibility:* If the paper contains original results, results
are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original
results, please check this item.
- *Human and animal research:* If the paper contains original data
research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's
human participants research policy and/or animal research policy
<https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/policies.html?highlight=animal#joss-policies>?
If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.
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, who the target audience is, and its relation to other
work?
- *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
<https://pandoc.org/MANUAL.html#extension-citations>?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#6073 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAVNKTJZR5XGMPTN2AWXOZLYJQXNFAVCNFSM6AAAAAA7UE4E6CVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNJXG4YTOMZXGI>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
Dear @LuisScoccola <https://github.com/LuisScoccola> thanks very much for
this feedback. We're working through your very helpful comments and hope to
have a response back in less than one week. We don't think it's a MacOS
issue- more about specifying dependencies but we'll report back. Happy New
Year to all of you.
George Chacko
…On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 8:18 AM LuisScoccola ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi @chackoge <https://github.com/chackoge>! I just submitted an issue,
probably related to the fact that I am running MacOS. Please let me know if
you have any suggestions. I don't see the pdf response that you referred to
in your last message, where can I find it?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#6073 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAVNKTMMODMTHKO2XACZWBTYLV5UDAVCNFSM6AAAAAA7UE4E6CVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNZRGIYTQMZSGQ>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
It looks like the pdf didn't transmit via email. I'm uploading it here. |
|
@LuisScoccola We looked into your issue. Vikram (the first author) has responded to it on Github. It turned out that std::binary_function is deprecated and this resulted in installation errors. python-mincut has been modified to use newer submodules and an alternate strategy (downgrading to gcc@13) is also described. I hope this addresses the problem. |
|
Hi - Thanks for making the changes I requested. The website with quick start and user guide is very helpful, as are the examples. I am happy that this is ready for publication. My only comment, which is minor, is that the example relies on running an R analysis script (one of the five R scripts that are in the scripts directory). I didn't have R installed in my test environment, so this exited with an error. Could you add "R" and any required R packages to the list of dependencies? Or, if this is only needed for some jobs, mention on the examples page that R needs to be installed to be able to run the examples. |
|
Hi Chris- we're on it. Thanks for the comments. GC
…On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 9:36 AM Christopher Woods ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi - Thanks for making the changes I requested. The website with quick
start and user guide is very helpful, as are the examples. I am happy that
this is ready for publication.
My only comment, which is minor, is that the example relies on running an
R analysis script (one of the five R scripts that are in the scripts
directory). I didn't have R installed in my test environment, so this
exited with an error.
Could you add "R" and any required R packages to the list of dependencies?
Or, if this is only needed for some jobs, mention on the examples page that
R needs to be installed to be able to run the examples.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#6073 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAVNKTLCGG4FKJX4FQ5KQ3LYM3EBPAVCNFSM6AAAAAA7UE4E6CVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNZXGMYDGMRWG4>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
@chryswoods We have added R as well as the data.table and feather packages as requirements in both the main readme and the documentation page. Please view the links to the updated requirements below: |
|
Thanks - that's great. Those scripts worked when I have R and those packages installed. I'm happy that your manuscript is now ready. Thanks for being so quick and making all the changes I suggested. |
|
@chackoge, here are my main comments about the manuscript. I am not asking for everything to be phrased as I suggest; but if you decide to not address one of the comments in the paper, please include an explanation in a response in this github issue.
|
|
@chackoge thank you for the prompt response and for addressing my comments. I have checked the paper and it looks good to me. I have three more minor comments regarding the last set of changes.
|
|
Hello @LuisScoccola:
Thanks for the quick turnaround on our revisions and the detailed comments.
We'll fix Line 34 as suggested right away.
WIth respect to Line 15 (and this goes back to my earlier comment about
scope and delving into the semantics of well connected). Mild is not used
as a modifier for standard. We used a mild definition of well-connected
defined by a slow growing function (as opposed to a stringent definition of
well connected) when evaluating cluster quality from MCL, Infomap, Leiden
(modularity or CPM), and IKC. Had a stringent definition been applied then
very few clusters would have satisfied the condition imposed and our
observation would have been artificially exaggerated. Hence we used 'mild'
to illustrate the prevalence of poorly connected clusters and developed
CM++ to remediate them. The function is plotted in Fig 9 of Park et al
(arXiv).
Here are relevant extracts from the text of Park that may also help.
*Extract 1.*
"We also observed that the number of clusters with small min cuts increases
as the resolution parameter decreases. Intrigued by this observation, we
performed a broader study to evaluate the extent to which clusters produced
by algorithms of interest meet even a mild standard for a well connected
cluster."
*Extract 2.*
"While a large fraction of small min cuts intuitively signals
“poorly-connected” clusters, there are different ways of formalizing this
notion. Here we offer a formal definition for the purposes of this study.
Briefly, we consider functions f(n) with the interpretation that if a
cluster of size n has an edge cut of size at most f(n) then the cluster
will be considered poorly connected. We want f(n) to grow very slowly so
that it serves as a mild bound. We also want f(n) ≥ 1 for all n that are
large enough for the cluster to be considered a potential community. From
three examples of slowly growing functions (Materials and Methods), we
choose f(n) = log10 n, the function that imposes the mildest constraint on
large clusters and grows more slowly than the bound in (10)."
Regards
George Chacko
Line 15: Regarding "Applying a mild standard for well-connectedness". I
think what is meant is clear, but I don't know if I have seen the word
"mild" as a modifier for "standard". If this is usual, please disregard
this comment. Otherwise, please consider replacing it with something like
"Using a standard notion of well-connectedness".
Message ID: ***@***.***>
… |
|
Thank you very much @chryswoodsand @LuisScoccola. Your comments have been
extremely helpful to us and we appreciate the professional courtesy of
reviewing our manuscript. I'l send out a confirmation later this morning in
this thread adn we'll review the manuscript one last time before notfiying
@arfon and everyone else in this thread.
GC
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 7:03 AM LuisScoccola ***@***.***> wrote:
@arfon I have finished the reviewing process and I'm happy with the
submission.
Once @chackoge confirms that the last small changes are implemented in
the paper, the submission is, from my side, ready.
I thank the authors for responding quickly and in detail to all of my
comments.
…
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
@chryswoodsand @LuisScoccola @arfon We have made all changes requested.
Thanks again.
George Chacko
…On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 7:11 AM George Chacko ***@***.***> wrote:
Thank you very much @chryswoodsand @LuisScoccola. Your comments have been
extremely helpful to us and we appreciate the professional courtesy of
reviewing our manuscript. I'l send out a confirmation later this morning in
this thread adn we'll review the manuscript one last time before notfiying
@arfon and everyone else in this thread.
GC
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 7:03 AM LuisScoccola ***@***.***>
wrote:
>
> @arfon I have finished the reviewing process and I'm happy with the
submission.
>
> Once @chackoge confirms that the last small changes are implemented in
the paper, the submission is, from my side, ready.
>
> I thank the authors for responding quickly and in detail to all of my
comments.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Message ID: ***@***.***>
>
|
|
@chackoge – looks like we're very close to being done here. I will circle back here next week, but in the meantime, please give your own paper a final read to check for any potential typos etc. After that, could you make a new release of this software that includes the changes that have resulted from this review. Then, please make an archive of the software in Zenodo/figshare/other service and update this thread with the DOI of the archive? For the Zenodo/figshare archive, please make sure that:
|
|
We're on it. Thanks @arfon.
…On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 7:27 AM Arfon Smith ***@***.***> wrote:
@chackoge <https://github.com/chackoge> – looks like we're very close to
being done here. I will circle back here next week, but in the meantime,
please give your own paper a final read to check for any potential typos
etc.
After that, could you make a new release of this software that includes
the changes that have resulted from this review. Then, please make an
archive of the software in Zenodo/figshare/other service and update this
thread with the DOI of the archive? For the Zenodo/figshare archive, please
make sure that:
- The title of the archive is the same as the JOSS paper title
- That the authors of the archive are the same as the JOSS paper
authors
- I can then move forward with accepting the submission.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#6073 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAVNKTP3TD6NRK47GAFMJCLYOKDTRAVCNFSM6AAAAAA7UE4E6CVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQOJQGQ2TSMBQHA>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
Hello @arfon, I have updated the release to v4.0.1 and the Zenodo DOI is 10.5281/zenodo.10501118. Thanks! Vikram |
|
@arfon and we've reviewed the manuscript one last time.
Thanks
George Chacko
…On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 2:01 PM Vikram Ramavarapu ***@***.***> wrote:
Hello @arfon <https://github.com/arfon>,
I have updated the release to v4.0.1 and the Zenodo DOI is
10.5281/zenodo.10501118 <https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10501118>.
Thanks!
Vikram
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#6073 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAVNKTLYBGKPEG2M4RN2BH3YOLRYLAVCNFSM6AAAAAA7UE4E6CVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQOJQG42TGOBXGI>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.10501118 as archive |
|
Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.10501118 |
|
@editorialbot recommend-accept |
|
|
|
👋 @openjournals/csism-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#4925, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command |
editorialbot
added
the
recommend-accept
|
@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. |
|
🐘🐘🐘 👉 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... |
|
@LuisScoccola, @chryswoods – many thanks for your reviews here! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you ✨ @chackoge – 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:
|
|
Well this is the best news I've had in 2024! Thank you very
much @arfon @LuisScoccola @chryswoods. The article was clearly improved by
your input so we're very grateful. The journal review process was also
quite refreshing in comparison with umm..another experience we had in 2023.
Regards GC
…On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 4:20 AM The Open Journals editorial robot < ***@***.***> wrote:
🎉🎉🎉 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:
[](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06073)
HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06073">
<img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06073/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>
reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06073/status.svg
:target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06073
This is how it will look in your documentation:
[image: DOI] <https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06073>
*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:
- Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add
your name to the reviewer list here:
https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
- Making a small donation to support our running costs here:
https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#6073 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAVNKTNDY6XCUZJ6ZXRVEG3YPI3E3AVCNFSM6AAAAAA7UE4E6CVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSMBQGA2DAMZXGA>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06073){kind=link}
|
Not sure how to make these @name things active.
@LuisScoccola <https://github.com/LuisScoccola>
@chryswoods <https://github.com/chryswoods>
…On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 12:28 PM George Chacko ***@***.***> wrote:
Well this is the best news I've had in 2024! Thank you very
much @arfon @LuisScoccola @chryswoods. The article was clearly improved by
your input so we're very grateful. The journal review process was also
quite refreshing in comparison with umm..another experience we had in 2023.
Regards GC
On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 4:20 AM The Open Journals editorial robot <
***@***.***> wrote:
> 🎉🎉🎉 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:
> [](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06073)
>
> HTML:
> <a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06073">
> <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06073/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
> </a>
>
> reStructuredText:
> .. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06073/status.svg
> :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06073
>
> This is how it will look in your documentation:
>
> [image: DOI] <https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06073>
>
> *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:
>
> - Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add
> your name to the reviewer list here:
> https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
> - Making a small donation to support our running costs here:
> https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#6073 (comment)>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAVNKTNDY6XCUZJ6ZXRVEG3YPI3E3AVCNFSM6AAAAAA7UE4E6CVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSMBQGA2DAMZXGA>
> .
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
> ***@***.***>
>
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Submitting author: @chackoge (George Chacko)
Repository: https://github.com/illinois-or-research-analytics/cm_pipeline.git
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main
Version: v4.0.0
Editor: @arfon
Reviewers: @LuisScoccola, @chryswoods
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10501118
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
@LuisScoccola & @chryswoods, 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 @arfon 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 @chryswoods
📝 Checklist for @LuisScoccola
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: