Submitting author: @ezsolti (Zsolt Elter)
Repository: https://github.com/ezsolti/feign/
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @katyhuff
Reviewer: @kellyrowland, @sskutnik
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3480082
Status badge code:
HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d6d0fa620abbd1777d73190b1038602a"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d6d0fa620abbd1777d73190b1038602a/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d6d0fa620abbd1777d73190b1038602a)
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.)
@kellyrowland & @sskutnik, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @katyhuff know.
โจ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks โจ
paper.md
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?paper.md
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @kellyrowland, @sskutnik it looks like you're currently assigned to review 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 ๐ฟ
To fix this do the following two things:
For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
@whedon commands
For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
@whedon generate pdf
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
Hello @kellyrowland, @sskutnik. Thank you for taking on the review. Please consider that I have committed most of the work as "zsolt" and realized this only after like 70 commits, when it was too late to change. Next time I will be more careful:)
Hi @ezsolti , it looks like JOSS requires a code release with a version number matching the one listed here, but there appear to be no releases on the source code repo.
@ezsolti : This issue regarding authorship can be helped with some rewriting of history, if you like... https://help.github.com/en/articles/changing-author-info
@kellyrowland @ezsolti : Since this will be the "v.1.0.0" release, it is not uncommon for authors to submit to JOSS before the release, and then, after making the edits requested by the reviewers (but not other major edits), make the v.1.0.0 release (since a release must be created for zenodo anyway, which is the last step of the JOSS publication.)
For now, let's assume this review process will end with a DOI that points to a v.1.0.0 release, but that all reviews are conducted at the most recent commit (at the time of submission: 61978385bd1b950ea66a9704572484dc20b93b34 ). @ezsolti This will require that, until acceptance and until after the release, you only make edits to your master branch that were requested by these two JOSS authors. Continuing development can happen in parallel of course, on an experimental branch -- but should not be included in the release, as it will not be included in the review.
Thanks for the clarification @katyhuff !
Yes, thank you for the clarification @katyhuff. I am not supposed to change the code (which i havent done), or anything in the repo, like minor typos in the the readme (which i have done, but can go back to the original commit)?
Also, I have managed to rewrite the history, thanks for the help!
@ezsolti : very minor changes are fine, as are changes related to satisfying the recommendations of the reviewers. It's just that, for cleanliness of the meaning of the review process, major changes shouldn't be incorporated mid-review (unless called for by the review process itself). Don't worry, we try to keep it really quick, and you can always work in another branch to keep your master branch clean.
Looks good to me, I think the proverbial ball is now in the court of @sskutnik .
Thanks @kellyrowland !
@sskutnik : I know it's a busy time. Please let us know if you expect this review to take more than a week or so to complete.
I've made a few minor comments re: the paper on ezsolti/feign/issues/7
In general, I'd recommend minor revisions, in part for clarity and also to clear up the theory of the efficiency calculation; also to update the references such that they render with fully-locatable citations. Otherwise, I think this looks fine.
Thanks @sskutnik ! Excellent first review!
@ezsolti : I agree with Prof. Skutnik regarding clarity. When you feel you've handled these comments (in ezsolti/feign/issues/7 mostly) please let me know (by @-mentioning me in this issue.) and we'll move forward.
@whedon generate pdf
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
@whedon generate pdf
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
@katyhuff : I have tried to address the comments of Prof. Skutnik, and as you see I have also tried to render a new paper based on some comments which did not require further "iterations" (I hope that this update was not against the rules). Unfortunately, one reference still renders strangely. Let's see whether @sskutnik would advise further changes based on the discussion in ezsolti/feign/issues/7 .
I think I'm happy with the proposed changes; I'd leave it to @ezsolti whether to include the figure provided in https://github.com/ezsolti/feign/issues/7
Otherwise, I think all of my concerns have been addressed and I would happily recommend this to move forward for publication. (Edit: Forgot to nudge @katyhuff on this; I think I'm satisfied.)
@sskutnik : Thinking it over again, i might be on the opinion that the figure in ezsolti/feign#7 or a similar one for more pins should rather be included in the documentation when reasoning why using the random source case is superior to the center case in certain setups. Feels like it would overcomplicate the paper which has already reached the recommended upper limit for length.
@ezsolti This seems like a reasonable conclusion. I think the documentation is a reasonable alternative.
@whedon generate pdf
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
Hello @katyhuff : sorry, i have been on parental leave for the last 2 weeks, and have overlooked the mail from this thread.
What is the next step now from my part?
Also, thank you for the reviews!
@whedon check references
Attempting to check references...
```Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
MISSING DOIs
INVALID DOIs
@ezsolti I have reviewed the code and the paper. I have some comments on the paper which can be found in the attached pdf:
joss-feign.pdf
Primarily:
@whedon generate pdf
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
@whedon generate pdf
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
@whedon generate pdf
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
@whedon generate pdf
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
@whedon generate pdf
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
@katyhuff Thank you for your comments, I've managed to address most of them:
@ezsolti Thank you for working toward addressing my comments.
Please let me know when you are able to:
Please note, these are not merely my suggestions, but are requirements at the core of our submission instructions, which can be found here:
https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#what-should-my-paper-contain
@whedon generate pdf
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
Hello @katyhuff , after reading through couple of more JOSS articles, I saw that some authors directly include a Statement of Need sections, so I tried to go with that. I also dropped the jargon. Please let me know what do you think of the text now?
@whedon check references
Attempting to check references...
```Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
MISSING DOIs
INVALID DOIs
Thank you @kellyrowland and @sskutnik for your reviews -- we couldn't do this without you.
Thank you @ezsolti for your submission and for engaging actively in the review process! I have looked over the paper, double-checked all the DOI links, and have conducted a high-level review of the code itself. Everything looks ship-shape to me. At this point, please double-check the paper yourself, review any lingering details in your code/readme/etc., and then make an archive of the reviewed software in Zenodo/figshare/other service. Please be sure that the DOI metadata (title, authors, etc.) matches this JOSS submission. If you need to update the version, that's fine, please just let me know if the version in the DOI is different from the version named in the submission. Once that's complete, please update this thread with the DOI of the archive, and I'll move forward with accepting the submission. Until then, now is your moment for final touchups!
Thank you @katyhuff !
The DOI for the archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3480082
The version is the same as in this submission!
@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3480082 as archive
OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3480082 is the archive.
@openjournals/joss-eics I believe this is ready for acceptance. Over to you!
@ezsolti โ I'm the Associate Editor-in-Chief on rotation this week. I made a few edits on the paper via PR. Unfortunately the diff is not too helpful, because long paragraphs were written on the same source line. The top fix I wanted to enter was an in-text citation that didn't use the right citation syntax. I also removed a few unnecessary "Then" and changed "analyze" to US spelling, plus little things.
@labarba Thank you! I have merged your commit.
@whedon accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
```Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
MISSING DOIs
INVALID DOIs
Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1025
If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1025, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true
e.g.
@whedon accept deposit=true
@whedon accept deposit=true
Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...
๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ ๐ Tweet for this paper ๐ ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ
๐จ๐จ๐จ THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! ๐จ๐จ๐จ
Here's what you must now do:
Party like you just published a paper! ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ป๐ค
Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...
Congratulations, @ezsolti, your JOSS paper is published! ๐
Huge thanks to our editor: @katyhuff, and reviewers: @kellyrowland, @sskutnik โ your contributions to JOSS are greatly appreciated ๐
: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:
[](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01650)
HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01650">
<img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01650/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>
reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01650/status.svg
:target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01650
This is how it will look in your documentation:
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:
Most helpful comment
Thanks @sskutnik ! Excellent first review!
@ezsolti : I agree with Prof. Skutnik regarding clarity. When you feel you've handled these comments (in ezsolti/feign/issues/7 mostly) please let me know (by @-mentioning me in this issue.) and we'll move forward.