Joss-reviews: [PRE REVIEW]: SeismicMesh: Triangular meshing for seismology

[whedon]

Submitting author: @krober10nd (Keith Roberts)
Repository: https://github.com/krober10nd/SeismicMesh
Version: v1.2
Editor: @meg-simula
Reviewers: @nschloe, @jorgensd
Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

: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.

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @krober10nd. Currently, there isn't an JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@krober10nd if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

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.

: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.

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

[whedon]

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/s00366-006-0014-1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2007.06.014 is OK
- 10.1145/2998441 is OK
- 10.1007/s00158-018-1950-2 is OK
- 10.1007/s12665-015-4537-x is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.93.4.1591 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-12-1847-2019 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2014.01.005 is OK
- 10.1109/SC.2014.86 is OK
- 10.1002/nme.2579 is OK
- 10.1145/2629697 is OK
- 10.1093/gji/ggv380 is OK
- 10.1190/1.3238367 is OK
- 10.1137/S0036144503429121 is OK
- 10.1190/1.1441754 is OK
- 10.1190/1.1437283 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04319-2_10 may be missing for title: Perturbing slivers in 3D Delaunay meshes

INVALID DOIs

- None

[krober10nd]

vijaysm daniellivingston santisoler cultpenguin gonsie

[arfon]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

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

[krober10nd]

Looks good to me.

[arfon]

@whedon check repository

[whedon]

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.84  T=0.12 s (498.1 files/s, 57134.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          39            688            754           2617
C++                              6            270            143           1299
reStructuredText                 8            308            127            380
TeX                              1             21              0            212
Markdown                         2             47              0            105
YAML                             2              1              0             41
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
CMake                            1             11              5             24
make                             1              4              7              9
INI                              1              0              0              4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            62           1358           1037           4717
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Statistical information for the repository '2592' was gathered on 2020/08/22.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Keith Roberts                  230         40317          32896           99.54
keith roberts                   11            50             11            0.08
krober10                         5           156            119            0.37

Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:

Author                     Rows      Stability          Age       % in comments
Keith Roberts              5692           14.1          2.8               11.28
krober10                     79           50.6          3.7                7.59

[arfon]

@whedon invite @leouieda as editor

:wave: @leouieda would you be able to edit this submission for JOSS?

[ooo[bot]]

:wave: Hey @arfon...

Letting you know, @leouieda is currently OOO until Monday, September 7th 2020. :heart:

[whedon]

@leouieda has been invited to edit this submission.

[ooo[bot]]

:wave: Hey @whedon...

Letting you know, @leouieda is currently OOO until Monday, September 7th 2020. :heart:

[labarba]

@whedon invite @meg-simula as editor

[whedon]

@meg-simula has been invited to edit this submission.

[meg-simula]

@labarba Yes, I can edit this.

[meg-simula]

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List all of Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# Assign a GitHub user as the sole reviewer of this submission
@whedon assign @username as reviewer

# Add a GitHub user to the reviewers of this submission
@whedon add @username as reviewer

# Re-invite a reviewer (if they can't update checklists)
@whedon re-invite @username as reviewer

# Remove a GitHub user from the reviewers of this submission
@whedon remove @username as reviewer

# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors

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

# Change editorial assignment
@whedon assign @username as editor

# Set the software archive DOI at the top of the issue e.g.
@whedon set 10.0000/zenodo.00000 as archive

# Set the software version at the top of the issue e.g.
@whedon set v1.0.1 as version

# Open the review issue
@whedon start review

EDITORIAL TASKS

# All commands can be run on a non-default branch, to do this pass a custom 
# branch name by following the command with `from branch custom-branch-name`.
# For example:

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf

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

# Remind an author or reviewer to return to a review after a
# certain period of time (supported units days and weeks)
@whedon remind @reviewer in 2 weeks

# Ask Whedon to do a dry run of accepting the paper and depositing with Crossref
@whedon accept

# 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

EiC TASKS

# Invite an editor to edit a submission (sending them an email)
@whedon invite @editor as editor

# Reject a paper
@whedon reject

# Withdraw a paper
@whedon withdraw

# Ask Whedon to actually accept the paper and deposit with Crossref
@whedon accept deposit=true

[meg-simula]

@whedon assign @meg-simula as editor

[whedon]

OK, the editor is @meg-simula

[meg-simula]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

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

[meg-simula]

@santisoler @nschloe would you be available to review this submission for JOSS? Please take a look at our reviewer guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html, and let us know. Your help would be much appreciated.

[nschloe]

@meg-simula I'm available.

[meg-simula]

@whedon assign @nschloe as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, @nschloe is now a reviewer

[meg-simula]

@jorgensd would you be available to review this submission for JOSS? Please take a look at our reviewer guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html, and let us know. Your help would be much appreciated.

[jorgensd]

@jorgensd would you be available to review this submission for JOSS? Please take a look at our reviewer guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html, and let us know. Your help would be much appreciated.

Im available.

[krober10nd]

hey @meg-simula Sorry to bother, but has the review officially started yet? Nico and I have been going back and forth for some time now.

[meg-simula]

@whedon add @jorgensd as reviewer

[meg-simula]

@whedon start review

[whedon]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/2687.

[meg-simula]

@whedon add @jorgensd as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, @jorgensd is now a reviewer

[meg-simula]

@whedon start review

[meg-simula]

@whedon start review

[meg-simula]

@arfon Could you have a look at this case? I asked whedon to add a reviewer, and then start the review, but the review was started before the second reviewer was added. I tried closing that review issue, and starting a new one with the two reviewers, but now it seems that whedon is not too keen to. Any advice?

[krober10nd]

Thanks @meg-simula !

[krober10nd]

hey @arfon I realize you're probably incredibly busy, but I think this could be an easy fix to send this paper to the official review stage. Looks like there was just some buggy interaction with the whedon bot? I would appreciate your help here very much. Thanks!

[arfon]

@arfon Could you have a look at this case? I asked whedon to add a reviewer, and then start the review, but the review was started before the second reviewer was added. I tried closing that review issue, and starting a new one with the two reviewers, but now it seems that whedon is not too keen to. Any advice?

There's no automated way to do this right now sorry. The 'fix' is to add the second reviewer on the actual review issue (#2687) and add a second checklist for them over there. I'll go ahead and do this for you now...