Joss-reviews: [REVIEW]: A Hyperbolic "Crystal Ball"

Created on 8 Feb 2019  ยท  56Comments  ยท  Source: openjournals/joss-reviews

Submitting author: @benjaminwilson (Benjamin Wilson)
Repository: https://github.com/lateral/crystal-ball
Version: v1.0.1
Editor: @poulson
Reviewer: @HaoZeke
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.2573958

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/033b265ce2f8562dc1148b534a09275c"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/033b265ce2f8562dc1148b534a09275c/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/033b265ce2f8562dc1148b534a09275c/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/033b265ce2f8562dc1148b534a09275c)

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 instructions & questions

@HaoZeke, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

  1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
  2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @poulson know.

โœจ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks โœจ

Review checklist for @HaoZeke

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

  • [x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
  • [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
  • [x] Version: v1.0.1
  • [x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@benjaminwilson) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

  • [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
  • [x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
  • [x] 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

  • [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
  • [x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
  • [x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
  • [x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
  • [x] 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

  • [x] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
  • [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • [x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
accepted published recommend-accept review

All 56 comments

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @HaoZeke 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 a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews ๐Ÿ˜ฟ

To fix this do the following two things:

  1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

watching

  1. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

@HaoZeke thanks for your initial feedback over on the other issue. I'll address that today!

Hi @HaoZeke , I've added a section that gives a high-level view of the algorithms for computing the updates to the point configurations to paper.md, and added a small note about the performance to README.md.

I think this addresses the bulk of your points from previously - but not all of them - I'm afraid I'll have to leave those until Monday.

Thanks already for the comments to date!

@whedon generate pdf

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

@benjaminwilson, thank you for the extensions, I will check when your additions are completed. In general, for the review process I will be opening issues on the project tracker, or where the solution is unambiguous, I shall be opening pull requests. Also, please check the references of the article.

@whedon check references

Attempting to check references...

```Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

  • None

MISSING DOIs

INVALID DOIs

  • None
    ```

@whedon generate pdf

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

@whedon check references

Attempting to check references...

```Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

  • None

MISSING DOIs

INVALID DOIs

  • None
    ```

@whedon check references

Attempting to check references...

```Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

  • None

MISSING DOIs

  • None

INVALID DOIs

  • None
    ```

@HaoZeke thanks for your patience! I think I've now addressed all issues raised in the pre-review.

Excellent work @benjaminwilson, I believe this is ready for submission now, @poulson .

@benjaminwilson It seems that the DOIs were removed rather than fixed. Would you mind making sure that each of the references has a DOI?

Hi @poulson, I've indeed removed some entries from the .bib file that I wasn't using. For all but one of the remainder, I am afraid that I am really stumped on getting DOIs for any of them. I was surprised that I couldn't find either on the paper itself or in published BibTeX or on crossref.org. I don't know if this is because they are all either arXiv (1) or conference proceedings (rest). Do you know of somewhere else I can look?

@benjaminwilson Hi Benjamin, I am still relatively new to whedon's check references, but you might try mirroring the DOI formatting of a recently completed review, such as https://github.com/sivaramambikasaran/HODLR/blob/master/docs/paper/paper.bib.

The DOI links are surrounded by curly braces and only contain the latter part of the address. Could you try this approach to see if the DOI's are picked up?

Hi! The problem is rather that I can't find the DOIs for those articles anywhere.

@whedon check references

Attempting to check references...

```Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

  • None

MISSING DOIs

INVALID DOIs

  • None
    ```

whedon sure does come up with some crazy suggestions for what the missing DOI might be!

@whedon generate pdf

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

Thanks @benjaminwilson; I proofread and everything looks great. Would you mind creating a Zenodo archive and reporting the DOI here?

Hi @poulson , I think I've got that done now: DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2573958

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.2573958 as archive

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.2573958 is the archive.

@whedon set v1.0.1 as version

OK. v1.0.1 is the version.

@whedon generate pdf

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

@benjaminwilson Thank you for your contribution!

@HaoZeke Thank you for providing your time and expertise for this review!

@arfon This paper should be ready for submission; I am forwarding it over to you (please excuse me, I think there is a rotating editorial board but am not sure who that lands on right now).

Thanks very much both @poulson and @HaoZeke for your comments and your patience!

@whedon accept

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

```Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

  • None

MISSING DOIs

INVALID DOIs

  • None
    ```

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/511

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/511, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.
@whedon accept deposit=true

@arfon This paper should be ready for submission; I am forwarding it over to you (please excuse me, I think there is a rotating editorial board but am not sure who that lands on right now).

@poulson - yep it's me this week. In the future you can ping @openjournals/joss-eics to get the editor on rotation.

@whedon accept deposit=true

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

๐Ÿšจ๐Ÿšจ๐Ÿšจ THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! ๐Ÿšจ๐Ÿšจ๐Ÿšจ

Here's what you must now do:

  1. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/512
  2. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01240
  3. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
  4. Party like you just published a paper! ๐ŸŽ‰๐ŸŒˆ๐Ÿฆ„๐Ÿ’ƒ๐Ÿ‘ป๐Ÿค˜

    Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

@HaoZeke - many thanks for your review here and to @poulson for editing this submission โœจ

@benjaminwilson - your paper is now accepted into JOSS :zap::rocket::boom:

:tada::tada::tada: Congratulations on your paper acceptance! :tada::tada::tada:

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01240/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01240)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01240">
  <img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01240/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01240/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01240

This is how it will look in your documentation:

DOI

We need your help!

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:

P.S. Congratulations to @poulson for editing his first JOSS paper โšก๏ธ

Was this page helpful?
0 / 5 - 0 ratings