Joss-reviews: [PRE REVIEW]: xml2jupyter: Mapping parameters between XML and Jupyter widgets

[whedon]

Submitting author: @rheiland (Randy Heiland)
Repository: https://github.com/rheiland/xml2jupyter
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @lheagy
Reviewers: @choldgraf

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @rheiland. Currently, there isn't an JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@rheiland if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

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

@whedon commands

What happens now?

This submission is currently in a pre-review state which means we are waiting for an editor to be assigned and for them to find some reviewers for your submission. This may take anything between a few hours to a couple of weeks. Thanks for your patience :smile_cat:

You can help the editor by looking at this list of potential reviewers to identify individuals who might be able to review your submission (please start at the bottom of the list). Also, feel free to suggest individuals who are not on this list by mentioning their GitHub handles here.

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[labarba]

@lheagy — the author suggested you as editor, and this indeed looks in your interest sphere. I will assign you now, but let me know if you're disinclined for any reason ...

[labarba]

@whedon assign @lheagy as editor

[whedon]

OK, the editor is @lheagy

[rheiland]

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

As a first-time JOSS submitter, I'm not exactly sure how this review thread works, but if I'm supposed to reply to this "check article proof", I would just say that it looks acceptable to me. It's just slightly strange with a line break on a quoted (p. 2).

[rheiland]

Regarding suggestions for possible reviewers, I'd probably prefer to use your list of potential reviewers. When I visit that list and look for relevant subject interests, I would probably suggest
@Chilipp, @dangunter, @louietaylor, @pgadige, @vsoch, or @wtgee , to name a few (not sure why some of these names seem not to be valid github usernames).

[MathCancer]

Thanks, everyone. Michael Hucka (https://github.com/mhucka), Herbert Sauro (https://github.com/hsauro), and Jacob Scott (https://github.com/cancerconnector) might also be appropriate reviewers, given their work in mathematical biology and interfacing computational models.

[lheagy]

Happy to @labarba!

[rheiland]

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors

# List of reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers

EDITORIAL TASKS

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf

# Compile the paper from alternative branch
@whedon generate pdf from branch custom-branch-name

# Ask Whedon to check the references for missing DOIs
@whedon check references

[rheiland]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[rheiland]

Looks good - just made a minimal change: "shown below" -> "shown in Figure 3" (because the figure wasn't below).

[lheagy]

:wave: Hi @mhucka, would you be willing to review this submission for the Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS)?

JOSS is a free, open-source, community driven and developer-friendly online journal. The review process is open, and conversation between the authors, reviewers and editors are encouraged. JOSS reviews involve downloading and installing the software, and inspecting the repository
and submitted paper for key elements. See https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

Editors and reviewers post comments on the Review issue, and authors respond to the comments
and improve their submission until acceptance (or withdrawal, if they feel unable to
satisfy the review).

If you are unable to review at this time, any suggestions you have for alternate reviewers would be appreciated.

Thanks for your consideration!

[choldgraf]

Hey all - I'd be happy to give this one a review if it's still needed.

[lheagy]

@whedon assign @choldgraf as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, the reviewer is @choldgraf

[lheagy]

:wave: Hi @fbergmann, would you be willing to review this submission for the Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS)?

JOSS is a free, open-source, community driven and developer-friendly online journal. The review process is open, and conversation between the authors, reviewers and editors are encouraged. JOSS reviews involve downloading and installing the software, and inspecting the repository
and submitted paper for key elements. See https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

Editors and reviewers post comments on the Review issue, and authors respond to the comments
and improve their submission until acceptance (or withdrawal, if they feel unable to
satisfy the review).

If you are unable to review at this time, any suggestions you have for alternate reviewers would be appreciated.

Thanks for your consideration!

[lheagy]

👋 Hi @dangunter, would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS?

[lheagy]

I am still on the look-out for another reviewer, but I will start the review so that @choldgraf can get started in the mean-time

[lheagy]

@whedon start review

[whedon]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/1408. Feel free to close this issue now!