Submitting author: @cicirello (Vincent A Cicirello)
Repository: https://github.com/cicirello/Chips-n-Salsa
Version: v1.3.0
Editor: @galessiorob
Reviewers: @nnadeau, @mbdemoraes
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3974614
:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:
Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.
Status badge code:
HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ff6046b4dd41979ff6eb38a8517b4b1b"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ff6046b4dd41979ff6eb38a8517b4b1b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ff6046b4dd41979ff6eb38a8517b4b1b)
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.)
@mbdemoraes & @nnadeau, 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 @galessiorob know.
โจ Please try and complete your review in the next six weeks โจ
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @mbdemoraes, @nnadeau it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper :tada:.
:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:
Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.
: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
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- 10.1007/978-3-030-24202-2_7 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00950 is OK
- 10.1109/TEVC.2015.2477284 is OK
- 10.4108/eai.3-12-2015.2262346 is OK
- 10.4108/icst.bict.2014.257872 is OK
- 10.1145/1143997.1144177 is OK
- 10.1007/s10732-005-6997-8 is OK
- 10.1126/science.220.4598.671 is OK
- 10.1016/b978-0-08-049944-4.50022-7 is OK
- 10.1609/aimag.v17i3.1232 is OK
- 10.1109/icec.1995.489178 is OK
- 10.1109/proc.1987.13916 is OK
- 10.1109/dac.1988.14775 is OK
- 10.1016/0020-0190(93)90029-9 is OK
- 10.1016/S0004-3702(00)00081-3 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(96)00007-0 may be missing for title: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach
INVALID DOIs
- None
@whedon commands
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
# Ask Whedon to check repository statistics for the submitted software
@whedon check repository
@whedon check references
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- 10.1007/978-3-030-24202-2_7 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00950 is OK
- 10.1109/TEVC.2015.2477284 is OK
- 10.4108/eai.3-12-2015.2262346 is OK
- 10.4108/icst.bict.2014.257872 is OK
- 10.1145/1143997.1144177 is OK
- 10.1007/s10732-005-6997-8 is OK
- 10.1126/science.220.4598.671 is OK
- 10.1016/b978-0-08-049944-4.50022-7 is OK
- 10.1609/aimag.v17i3.1232 is OK
- 10.1109/icec.1995.489178 is OK
- 10.1109/proc.1987.13916 is OK
- 10.1109/dac.1988.14775 is OK
- 10.1016/0020-0190(93)90029-9 is OK
- 10.1016/S0004-3702(00)00081-3 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(96)00007-0 may be missing for title: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach
INVALID DOIs
- None
@whedon generate pdf
@whedon check references
@whedon generate pdf
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- 10.1007/978-3-030-24202-2_7 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00950 is OK
- 10.1109/TEVC.2015.2477284 is OK
- 10.4108/eai.3-12-2015.2262346 is OK
- 10.4108/icst.bict.2014.257872 is OK
- 10.1145/1143997.1144177 is OK
- 10.1007/s10732-005-6997-8 is OK
- 10.1126/science.220.4598.671 is OK
- 10.1016/b978-0-08-049944-4.50022-7 is OK
- 10.1609/aimag.v17i3.1232 is OK
- 10.1109/icec.1995.489178 is OK
- 10.1109/proc.1987.13916 is OK
- 10.1109/dac.1988.14775 is OK
- 10.1016/0020-0190(93)90029-9 is OK
- 10.1016/S0004-3702(00)00081-3 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(96)00007-0 may be missing for title: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach
INVALID DOIs
- None
@whedon generate pdf
@whedon add @mbdemoraes as reviewer
OK, @mbdemoraes is now a reviewer
๐ @mbdemoraes and @nnadeau this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.
Both reviewers have checklists at the top of this thread with the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.
Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#REVIEW_NUMER
so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.
We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if any of you require some more time. We can also use Whedon (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.
Please feel free to ping me (@galessiorob) if you have any questions/concerns.
@whedon check references
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- 10.21105/joss.00950 is OK
- 10.1109/TEVC.2015.2477284 is OK
- 10.4108/icst.bict.2014.257872 is OK
- 10.1007/s10732-005-6997-8 is OK
- 10.1201/9781351236423 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-91086-4_1 is OK
- 10.1016/b978-0-08-049944-4.50022-7 is OK
- 10.1609/aimag.v17i3.1232 is OK
- 10.1145/3377930.3390185 is OK
- 10.1145/1516512.1516520 is OK
- 10.1145/3371425.3371641 is OK
- 10.1016/0020-0190(93)90029-9 is OK
- 10.1016/S0004-3702(00)00081-3 is OK
- 10.1145/3321707.3321715 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cie.2017.06.019 is OK
- 10.1007/s10732-018-9366-0 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119136378.ch1 may be missing for title: Evolutionary Algorithms
INVALID DOIs
- None
@whedon generate pdf
PDF failed to compile for issue #2448 with the following error:
pandoc-citeproc: reference mbdemoraes not found
Error producing PDF.
! TeX capacity exceeded, sorry [input stack size=5000].
\reserved@a ->\def \reserved@a
*{\let \@xs@assign \@xs@expand@and@detokenize...
l.333 }
Looks like we failed to compile the PDF
@whedon check references
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- 10.21105/joss.00950 is OK
- 10.1109/TEVC.2015.2477284 is OK
- 10.4108/icst.bict.2014.257872 is OK
- 10.1007/s10732-005-6997-8 is OK
- 10.1201/9781351236423 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-91086-4_1 is OK
- 10.1016/b978-0-08-049944-4.50022-7 is OK
- 10.1609/aimag.v17i3.1232 is OK
- 10.1145/3377930.3390185 is OK
- 10.1145/1516512.1516520 is OK
- 10.1145/3371425.3371641 is OK
- 10.1016/0020-0190(93)90029-9 is OK
- 10.1016/S0004-3702(00)00081-3 is OK
- 10.1145/3321707.3321715 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cie.2017.06.019 is OK
- 10.1007/s10732-018-9366-0 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119136378 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
@whedon check references
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- 10.21105/joss.00950 is OK
- 10.1109/TEVC.2015.2477284 is OK
- 10.4108/icst.bict.2014.257872 is OK
- 10.1007/s10732-005-6997-8 is OK
- 10.1201/9781351236423 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-91086-4_1 is OK
- 10.1016/b978-0-08-049944-4.50022-7 is OK
- 10.1609/aimag.v17i3.1232 is OK
- 10.1145/3377930.3390185 is OK
- 10.1002/9781119136378 is OK
- 10.1145/1516512.1516520 is OK
- 10.1145/3371425.3371641 is OK
- 10.1016/0020-0190(93)90029-9 is OK
- 10.1016/S0004-3702(00)00081-3 is OK
- 10.1145/3321707.3321715 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cie.2017.06.019 is OK
- 10.1007/s10732-018-9366-0 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
@whedon generate pdf
PDF failed to compile for issue #2448 with the following error:
pandoc-citeproc: reference mbdemoraes not found
Error producing PDF.
! TeX capacity exceeded, sorry [input stack size=5000].
\reserved@a ->\def \reserved@a
*{\let \@xs@assign \@xs@expand@and@detokenize...
l.333 }
Looks like we failed to compile the PDF
@galessiorob I just made a few edits to the paper.md and paper.tex. When generating the pdf with whedon, I got a very strange error that appears to be related to one of the reviewer ids (see the part of the error that says: "pandoc-citeproc: reference mbdemoraes not found"), and not at all due to the paper. See the error in the result from whedon above. I just tried the preview service (https://whedon.theoj.org/) to confirm that it isn't due to paper.md or paper.tex. The paper compiles fine with the preview service.
Any idea how to correct this?
@whedon generate pdf
it's often worth just trying again in case the problem is transient
PDF failed to compile for issue #2448 with the following error:
pandoc-citeproc: reference mbdemoraes not found
Error producing PDF.
! TeX capacity exceeded, sorry [input stack size=5000].
\reserved@a ->\def \reserved@a
*{\let \@xs@assign \@xs@expand@and@detokenize...
l.333 }
Looks like we failed to compile the PDF
๐ @openjournals/dev - can you take a look at this?
thank you @danielskatz !
@whedon check references
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- 10.21105/joss.00950 is OK
- 10.1109/TEVC.2015.2477284 is OK
- 10.4108/icst.bict.2014.257872 is OK
- 10.1007/s10732-005-6997-8 is OK
- 10.1201/9781351236423 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-91086-4_1 is OK
- 10.1016/b978-0-08-049944-4.50022-7 is OK
- 10.1609/aimag.v17i3.1232 is OK
- 10.1145/3377930.3390185 is OK
- 10.1002/9781119136378 is OK
- 10.1145/1516512.1516520 is OK
- 10.1145/3371425.3371641 is OK
- 10.1016/0020-0190(93)90029-9 is OK
- 10.1016/S0004-3702(00)00081-3 is OK
- 10.1145/3321707.3321715 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cie.2017.06.019 is OK
- 10.1007/s10732-018-9366-0 is OK
- 10.1145/3319619.3326865 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ejor.2019.01.018 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
@whedon generate pdf
PDF failed to compile for issue #2448 with the following error:
pandoc-citeproc: reference mbdemoraes not found
Error producing PDF.
! TeX capacity exceeded, sorry [input stack size=5000].
\reserved@a ->\def \reserved@a
*{\let \@xs@assign \@xs@expand@and@detokenize...
l.333 }
Looks like we failed to compile the PDF
@whedon generate pdf
PDF failed to compile for issue #2448 with the following error:
pandoc-citeproc: reference mbdemoraes not found
Error producing PDF.
! TeX capacity exceeded, sorry [input stack size=5000].
\reserved@a ->\def \reserved@a
*{\let \@xs@assign \@xs@expand@and@detokenize...
l.333 }
Looks like we failed to compile the PDF
@whedon generate pdf
Looks like there was some weirdness going on with whitespace at the top of the issue (I'm still trying to figure out exactly what went wrong here but it seems to be fixed now)
@cicirello almost there! Great job so far! I believe these should be the last issues:
@galessiorob it seems my invitation to review has expired, so I can't check the checklist. Can you send me it again?
@whedon add @mbdemoraes as reviewer
OK, @mbdemoraes is now a reviewer
@mbdemoraes just re-added you, let me know if you have issues. Thanks!
@galessiorob thank you! I've accepted the invitation.
@cicirello thanks for working out the install and run instructions with @mbdemoraes!
@mbdemoraes thank you so much for your review, the only item to check-off is Performance
, which based on the article you can check because there are no performance claims.
@nnadeau thank you too for your review, the only missing items from your checklist are Installation instructions
and Community guidelines
, mind checking those off if you're satisfied or giving notes on what is missing if so?
Almost there! ๐
done
Hello! I've finished my review. Everything checked now.
@whedon generate pdf
I'm sorry @galessiorob, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editor-in-chiefs are allowed to do.
@whedon check references
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- 10.21105/joss.00950 is OK
- 10.1109/TEVC.2015.2477284 is OK
- 10.4108/icst.bict.2014.257872 is OK
- 10.1007/s10732-005-6997-8 is OK
- 10.1201/9781351236423 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-91086-4_1 is OK
- 10.1016/b978-0-08-049944-4.50022-7 is OK
- 10.1609/aimag.v17i3.1232 is OK
- 10.1145/3377930.3390185 is OK
- 10.1002/9781119136378 is OK
- 10.1145/1516512.1516520 is OK
- 10.1145/3371425.3371641 is OK
- 10.1016/0020-0190(93)90029-9 is OK
- 10.1016/S0004-3702(00)00081-3 is OK
- 10.1145/3321707.3321715 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cie.2017.06.019 is OK
- 10.1007/s10732-018-9366-0 is OK
- 10.1145/3319619.3326865 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ejor.2019.01.018 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
@cicirello we're almost ready to publish! Could you please deposit your software in Zenodo and post the DOI here?
After that, we can set the final version and accept the paper ๐
@mbdemoraes and @nnadeau thank you both so much for your time and expertise โจ
@galessiorob the Zenodo doi for all versions is https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3959773 . I think that is probably the one you want. It looks like zenodo also generates a doi for each release, so if you want the one that goes to a specific release then it is https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3974614 .
@nnadeau and @mbdemoraes thank you both for your time, expertise, and very helpful feedback in your reviews.
@whedon generate pdf
@whedon set v1.3.0 as version
OK. v1.3.0 is the version.
@whedon accept
No archive DOI set. Exiting...
@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3974614 as archive
OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3974614 is the archive.
@whedon generate pdf
@whedon accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- 10.21105/joss.00950 is OK
- 10.1109/TEVC.2015.2477284 is OK
- 10.4108/icst.bict.2014.257872 is OK
- 10.1007/s10732-005-6997-8 is OK
- 10.1201/9781351236423 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-91086-4_1 is OK
- 10.1016/b978-0-08-049944-4.50022-7 is OK
- 10.1609/aimag.v17i3.1232 is OK
- 10.1145/3377930.3390185 is OK
- 10.1002/9781119136378 is OK
- 10.1145/1516512.1516520 is OK
- 10.1145/3371425.3371641 is OK
- 10.1016/0020-0190(93)90029-9 is OK
- 10.1016/S0004-3702(00)00081-3 is OK
- 10.1145/3321707.3321715 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cie.2017.06.019 is OK
- 10.1007/s10732-018-9366-0 is OK
- 10.1145/3319619.3326865 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ejor.2019.01.018 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
:wave: @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.
Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1638
If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1638, 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 generate pdf
@whedon accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- 10.21105/joss.00950 is OK
- 10.1109/TEVC.2015.2477284 is OK
- 10.4108/icst.bict.2014.257872 is OK
- 10.1007/s10732-005-6997-8 is OK
- 10.1201/9781351236423 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-91086-4_1 is OK
- 10.1016/b978-0-08-049944-4.50022-7 is OK
- 10.1609/aimag.v17i3.1232 is OK
- 10.1145/3377930.3390185 is OK
- 10.1002/9781119136378 is OK
- 10.1145/1516512.1516520 is OK
- 10.1145/3371425.3371641 is OK
- 10.1016/0020-0190(93)90029-9 is OK
- 10.1016/S0004-3702(00)00081-3 is OK
- 10.1145/3321707.3321715 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cie.2017.06.019 is OK
- 10.1007/s10732-018-9366-0 is OK
- 10.1145/3319619.3326865 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ejor.2019.01.018 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
:wave: @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.
Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1639
If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1639, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true
e.g.
@whedon accept deposit=true
@cicirello could you please give this last version a final proof read? An editor in chief will take it from here and get it published now โจ
@galessiorob I proofread the latest version, and it looks fine. Thank you for your time and expertise overseeing the review.
@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...
Congrats @cicirello on your article's publication in JOSS!
Many thanks to @nnadeau and @mbdemoraes for reviewing this, and @galessiorob for editing.
: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.02448)
HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02448">
<img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02448/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>
reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02448/status.svg
:target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02448
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: