-
-
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]: ThermoParser: Streamlined Analysis of the Thermoelectric Properties #6340
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 |
@editorialbot add @fnattino as reviewer |
@fnattino added to the reviewers list! |
|
@editorialbot add @espottesmith as reviewer |
@espottesmith added to the reviewers list! |
👋🏼 @enricgrau, @fnattino, @espottesmith this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on. As a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering
as the top of a new comment in this thread. These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains 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 reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please feel free to ping me (@mbarzegary) if you have any questions/concerns. |
Review checklist for @fnattinoConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
@kbspooner this is where the review takes place. Please keep an eye out for comments here from the reviewers, as well as any issues opened by them on your software repository. I recommend you aim to respond to these as soon as possible, and you can address them straight away as they come in if you like, to ensure we do not loose track of the reviewers. To start with, can you please fix the missing DOIs issue reported by the editorial bot? |
Review checklist for @enricgrauConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
@editorialbot generate pdf |
Review checklist for @espottesmithConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
@editorialbot generate pdf |
@editorialbot commands |
Hello @kbspooner, here are the things you can ask me to do:
|
@editorialbot check references |
|
I believe thats all the references done (including ones that editorialbot missed). |
phono3py-power-tools doesn't have a doi but a url is included. |
@kbspooner I see that the mentioned software doesn't have any other mean of citation or a even a version number unfortunately. Moreover, it seems that you needed to cite it since you wanted to compare you code with it, so we cannot mark it as an unnecessary citation and replace it with a link. As a result, I think it's fine to proceed with how it is now. |
@editorialbot generate pdf |
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.10987923 as archive |
Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.10987923 |
@editorialbot set v3.1.4 as version |
Done! version is now v3.1.4 |
@editorialbot check references |
|
@editorialbot recommend-accept |
|
|
👋 @openjournals/bcm-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#5261, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command |
@kbspooner as AEiC for JOSS I will now help to process this submission for acceptance in JOSS. I have checked this review, your repository, the archive link, and the paper. Most seems in order, I'll just ask one reviewer for clarification before we move on. |
@enricgrau thanks for your help reviewing this submission. Could you check if you meant to leave the |
@enricgrau can you please check on the Functionality box, as we would very much like to get this sorted as soon as possible? |
@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman on march 28, @enricgrau told me that he is satisfied with the revised paper/code (message below), so the check box is simply missed to tick I would say.
|
Im really sorry @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman @kbspoone. Box is checked now. |
@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... |
@kbspooner congratulations on this JOSS publication!!!!! @mbarzegary thanks for editing! And a special thank you to the reviewers: @enricgrau, @fnattino, @espottesmith !!! |
🎉🎉🎉 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: @kbspooner (Kieran B. Spooner)
Repository: https://github.com/SMTG-Bham/ThermoParser
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-paper
Version: v3.1.4
Editor: @mbarzegary
Reviewers: @enricgrau, @fnattino, @espottesmith
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10987923
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
@enricgrau, 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 @mbarzegary 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 @enricgrau
📝 Checklist for @fnattino
📝 Checklist for @espottesmith
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: