Submitting author: @mvhulten (Marco van Hulten)
Repository: https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/complot/
Version: 0.1
Editor: @lheagy
Reviewer: @AnsleyManke
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.853423
Status badge code:
HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/5f86741ca9c53ccaafc0162f681b443f"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/5f86741ca9c53ccaafc0162f681b443f/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/5f86741ca9c53ccaafc0162f681b443f)
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.)
@AnsleyManke, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below (please make sure you're logged in to GitHub). The reviewer guidelines are available here: http://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @lheagy know.
paper.md
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?Hello human, I'm @whedon. I'm here to help you with some common editorial tasks for JOSS. @AnsleyManke it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper :tada:.
:star: Important :star:
If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As as reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all JOSS reviews 😿
To fix this do the following two things:
For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
@whedon commands
@whedon commands
I have just pushed a couple of changes to the repository. It does not change anything in the scripts/
directory, because that may raise confusion during review. I'm not sure if there are rules for that. The related changes on the ComPlot project page concern:
Thanks for the update @mvhulten and @AnsleyManke for the review! At this point, do you recommend that we Accept the submission?
I recommend that joss-reviews accepts the submission.
@kyleniemeyer: would you mind pointing me to next steps here? Thanks!
Excellent! The last item is for @mvhulten to archive the final version of the software (e.g., on Zenodo) and tell us the DOI.
Then, you tell @whedon what that DOI is, and @arfon can publish the paper.
Thanks for your review @AnsleyManke!
@mvhulten: could you please archive ComPlot (eg. https://zenodo.org/) and post the doi here?
Thank you @AnsleyManke, @lheagy and @kyleniemeyer!
There are still several open bugs and feature requests in ComPlot, which I will address within the next days or weeks. But I need to address at least one issue about the documentation right now. When I've done that, I can make a final release. This would be labelled version 0.1.2 or 0.2 or so on Savannah.
Zenodo appears to be useful as there will be a doi. I think that on Zenodo versions are integer (starting with version 1). Does it matter what the version is on the regular release page of the software? I could label it 1.0, but not to be in sync with Zenodo because possibly some later minor version like 1.3.1 or so will be version 2 on Zenodo. I would label it 1.0 to make clear it is a stable release. Would that be preferred to a 0.x version?
Sounds good @mvhulten!
For the version of the code, I would recommend bumping it to 1.0.0 to indicate that this is a stable version. This then corresponds to the Zenodo version (1.0). If updates are made, Zenodo can be updated to 1.1 etc. They have a bit more info at: http://help.zenodo.org/#versioning
@mvhulten don't worry about matching your software version to the Zenodo record- the latter just uses integers to keep track of how many versions you have archived on it. You should still use your own (preferably semantic) versioning—personally I archive many versions on Zenodo, not just major releases.
If it's appropriate for the JOSS version to be 1.0.0, then that works, but it doesn't have to be.
Also, if there are any major changes coming with the software, then it probably needs to be reevaluated for JOSS, at least minimally—unless I misunderstand the level of changes to be made.
Thanks for the clarification @kyleniemeyer!
@whedon, the doi is 10.5281/zenodo.853422
@mvhulten - before we can accept this submission I need you to make a few changes to the paper and bibtex file. Please use the modified versions in this gist
Also, please remove (or modify) the licensing statement for the paper, JOSS papers are all licensed under CC-BY. You're of course welcome to license your logo as you please :-)
I've dual licensed them now to be sure that I comply with both Savannah and JoOSS. Here is the diff. (Savannah possibly sees the paper.md as documentation which should be published under a licence that is compatible with GFDL-3.1+, e.g. GFDL-3.1+ or CC-BY-SA-3.0.) The licensing conditions are now such that you are completely to remove exactly one of the two licences: that is CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence such that you are left with the CC-BY-4.0 licence needed for JoOSS.
In any case, I'm sure everything should be fine like this, please proceed with the publication.
I just saw you have a new version for paper.md
as well. Let me have a look at this now.
I applied all of your changes as well now.
I forgot the paper.md
in your gist, because the title of the HTML page's title is paper.bib.
I've dual licensed them now to be sure that I comply with both Savannah and JoOSS. Here is the diff.
👍 ok thanks.
I can't see the changes reflected in what looks to be the latest version of the paper. Are you sure you've pushed them?
Specifically, I need you to remove the latex commands from the paper.md
and fix the YAML metadata to match what is in https://gist.githubusercontent.com/arfon/2c5e115828289fc57f9a29aa0d00db63/raw/12766c24f2a66adc81b8bc82da33578f18e8f960/paper.md
The commits were not pushed. Done now!
The commits were not pushed. Done now!
Thanks! At this point could you make an archive of the reviewed software in Zenodo/figshare/other service and update this thread with the DOI of the archive? I can then move forward with accepting the submission.
@arfon, @lheagy, @whedon et al., the doi of the reviewed version 1 of ComPlot is doi:10.5281/zenodo.853423
. Release version is now 1.0.0 (though the tip of the repository with changes for the paper publication is newer; I could do a 1.0.1, but that doesn't change the Zenodo version).
@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.853423 as archive
OK. 10.5281/zenodo.853423 is the archive.
@AnsleyManke many thanks for your review here and to @lheagy for editing this submission ✨
@mvhulten - your paper is now accepted into JOSS and your DOI is http://dx.doi.org/10.21105/joss.00368 ⚡️ 🚀 💥
Thank you very much!
@arfon, is there any option to make changes? It's about figures:
@arfon, is there any option to make changes? It's about figures:
Sure thing.
For the logo, can I use an svg figure? Will that go well if you are creating the pdf file, since, I presume, this goes through LaTeX?
As for the other (new) figure, a normal SVG image becomes 32 MiB in size, which is much larger than the ComPlot source repository. Ferret vector graphs consists of many small vectors, but it can be compressed. Only a compressed svg is not understood by my Firefox (probably not part of the HTML web standard). A vectorised pdf would work for the pdf file. Probably it is easiest to go with a raster format with an acceptable resolution, but if someone knows how to tackle this, please let met know.
I updated my repository, including the paper (figures and minor changes).
@arfon, I pushed the final changes for the revised version. Could you apply the changes to the published paper?
@lheagy, @kyleniemeyer, @arfon, could one of you update the paper with some minor revisions (svg logo, acknowledgements, ...)?
hg clone http://hg.savannah.nongnu.org/hgweb/complot/
or get paper.{tex,bib}
and logo.svg
from the same URL.
Yep, it's on my todo list. Busy week...
@mvhulten - looks like Pandoc/PDFLatex don't like your SVG. Can we just use the PNG?
@arfon, I was unsure/afraid of this. Could you use the SVG for the HTML page, and the PNG for the PDF? That would be a good enough for me.
I'm afraid it needs to be the same for both (PNG)
Okay, go ahead with the PNG.
Maybe if I have the same issue again in the future, I'll try to help look for a better solution (vector in both web and pdf).
OK thanks for your understanding @mvhulten. I've updated the PDF and web versions of the paper now.
Most helpful comment
@AnsleyManke many thanks for your review here and to @lheagy for editing this submission ✨
@mvhulten - your paper is now accepted into JOSS and your DOI is http://dx.doi.org/10.21105/joss.00368 ⚡️ 🚀 💥