-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 38
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[REVIEW]: compareMCMCs: An R package for studying MCMC efficiency #3844
Comments
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @rowlandseymour, @tbrown122387 it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper 🎉. 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. ⭐ Important ⭐ 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 😿 To fix this do the following two things:
For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
|
|
PDF failed to compile for issue #3844 with the following error:
|
👋🏼 @tbrown122387 @perrydv @rowlandseymour 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. The JOSS review is different from most other journals. 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 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 (@fabian-s) if you have any questions/concerns. |
@whedon generate pdf from branch joss |
|
I spent yesterday afternoon playing around with the I've raised a few issues which I'd say are minor issues. The one improvement I'd really like to see is an example of Stan code in the vignette. Once these issues are all resolved I'm happy for the paper to be accepted. Fantastic work! |
👋 @rowlandseymour, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder). |
👋 @tbrown122387, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder). |
(sorry about those automatic reminders...) @perrydv both reviewers have gone through their checklists and defined some issues in your repo. I would consider nimble-dev/compareMCMCs#16 to be issues currently blocking acceptance as they are directly relevant for points on the JOSS criteria checklist. Please adress/discuss the issues opened by the reviewers and me in the respective issue threads. |
@whedon check references |
|
@whedon check references |
|
Thanks @fabian-s. I've done the following:
The process is new to me and I was not sure whether to take the (permanent) step of hitting publish on Zenodo. |
@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.5842623 as archive |
OK. 10.5281/zenodo.5842623 is the archive. |
@whedon set v1.0.0 as version |
OK. v1.0.0 is the version. |
@fabian-s Zenodo did something where it automatically populated metadata and took my GitHub user name (perrydv) instead of my real name. I thought I fixed that when I updated the metadata. Also I thought I updated the title to match the paper title as requested. I went back into that and tried save and publish. Does this help: https://zenodo.org/record/5842623. Sorry I'm new to this and not sure I've done it right. |
@perrydv thanks, this works! |
@whedon recommend-accept |
|
|
👋 @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published. Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#2886 If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#2886, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag
|
@whedon accept deposit=true |
|
🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦 |
🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨 Here's what you must now do:
Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team... |
Congratulations to @perrydv (Perry de Valpine) and co-authors!! And thanks to @rowlandseymour @tbrown122387 for reviewing, and to @fabian-s for editing! (and thanks specifically to @perrydv and @fabian-s - it's a pleasure for me as AEiC to get a paper that's completely ready for publishing, with no additional editing needed) |
🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉 If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:
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:
|
Submitting author: @perrydv (Perry de Valpine)
Repository: https://github.com/nimble-dev/compareMCMCs/
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @fabian-s
Reviewer: @rowlandseymour, @tbrown122387
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5842623
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
Status badge code:
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.)
Reviewer instructions & questions
@rowlandseymour & @tbrown122387, 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 @fabian-s know.
✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨
Review checklist for @rowlandseymour
✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
Review checklist for @tbrown122387
✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: