-
-
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]: Mordecai: Full Text Geoparsing and Event Geocoding #91
Comments
Hello human, I'm @whedon. I'm here to help you with some common editorial tasks for JOSS. For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
|
@whedon commands |
Here are some things you can ask me to do:
🚧 Important 🚧 This is all quite new. Please make sure you check the top of the issue after running a @whedon command (you might also need to refresh the page to see the issue update). |
@riordan, let me know if you run into any trouble with the documentation/installation. The model's pretty big, unfortunately, so getting it stood up doesn't go smoothly depending on how much memory you have. |
@whedon start review |
I'm sorry @riordan, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only JOSS editors are allowed to do. |
@riordan - need any help? Looks like the review is already happening (you're checking items off the list) |
I merged a PR in that reorganizes how it deals with the data download, which is something you had changed, @riordan. This is sort of a general JOSS question, should I re-release the repo and change which version is being submitted? Or should we keep going with the existing version? The differences aren't too big so it shouldn't matter too much either way. |
@ahalterman - I would recommend making a new release once the review is complete and all of the changes (associated with the review) have been made. |
I wanted to check in and see if there's anything I can do to help along the review process. I really appreciate all the work you all have already put in. |
@ahalterman: Thank you for the prod! I finished my tests up 2 weeks ago and it's really impressive. The installation ran according to documentation, which was really straightforward for installation. I'd suggest a clearer statement of need in the paper (something you do well in the README.md). Bringing in a bit more context, especially from your experience scanning news articles to find the places that are being written about, would be really useful here. Other than that, I think it just needs an archival DOI (though I'd defer to @acabunoc or @arfon on that). |
@riordan Thanks so much for doing this review! I'm glad you liked it and that things checked out. I just updated the paper to include more of the statement of need. If it looks good to you, it sounds like the paper ready to go. Thanks everyone! |
I wanted to check in again and see if that commit addressed your last request, @riordan. If so, I think it should be ready for a DOI. |
Totally! 👍 |
Thanks for the great work here @riordan & @ahalterman 👏 🎉 @ahalterman, could you make sure there's an archive of the reviewed software in Zenodo/figshare/other service and update this thread with the DOI of the archive? Thanks! |
@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.250879 as archive |
OK. 10.5281/zenodo.250879 is the archive. |
flagging @arfon, I think we're good to go here! Thanks @riordan & @ahalterman ✨ |
@ahalterman your paper is now accepted into JOSS and your paper DOI is http://dx.doi.org/10.21105/joss.00091 ⚡️ 🚀 💥 |
Submitting author: @ahalterman (Andrew Lee Halterman)
Repository: https://github.com/openeventdata/mordecai
Version: v1.1.0
Editor: @acabunoc
Reviewer: @riordan
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.250879
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) 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 questions
Conflict of interest
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
Paper PDF: 10.21105.joss.00091.pdf
paper.md
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: