[REVIEW]: Baargin: a Nextflow workflow for the automatic analysis of bacterial genomics data with a focus on Antimicrobial Resistance #5397

editorialbot · 2023-04-22T16:40:02Z

Submitting author: @jhayer (Juliette Hayer)
Repository: https://github.com/jhayer/baargin
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @fboehm
Reviewers: @mberacochea, @rcannood
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8386399

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c60299dd2ffa63c5fb6364ea2d8234d2"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c60299dd2ffa63c5fb6364ea2d8234d2/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c60299dd2ffa63c5fb6364ea2d8234d2/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c60299dd2ffa63c5fb6364ea2d8234d2)

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

@mberacochea & @rcannood, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @fboehm 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 ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @rcannood

📝 Checklist for @mberacochea

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

editorialbot · 2023-04-22T16:40:04Z

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

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

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2023-04-22T16:40:05Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.04 s (340.0 files/s, 50197.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                           8            180            230            797
Markdown                         2            114              0            385
TeX                              1             16              0            292
YAML                             3              5              9             39
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            14            315            239           1513
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot · 2023-04-22T16:40:06Z

Wordcount for paper.md is 1231

editorialbot · 2023-04-22T16:40:10Z

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/D41586-022-00228-X is OK
- 10.1038/nbt.3820 is OK
- 10.1093/BIOINFORMATICS/BTY560 is OK
- 10.1002/CPBI.102 is OK
- 10.1371/JOURNAL.PCBI.1005595 is OK
- 10.1186/S13059-019-1891-0 is OK
- 10.1038/S41596-022-00738-Y is OK
- 10.1093/BIOINFORMATICS/BTT086 is OK
- 10.1093/MOLBEV/MSAB199 is OK
- 10.1128/AAC.02412-14 is OK
- 10.1099/MGEN.0.000398 is OK
- 10.1093/NAR/GKAC920 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-021-91456-0 is OK
- 10.1093/BIOINFORMATICS/BTU153 is OK
- 10.1099/MGEN.0.000685 is OK
- 10.1093/BIOINFORMATICS/BTV421 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-04-22T16:41:16Z

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

fboehm · 2023-04-25T15:32:55Z

@mberacochea @rcannood - please let me know if you have any questions about getting started with the reviews. Thanks again!

fboehm · 2023-04-30T16:15:21Z

@mberacochea @rcannood - I hope that you're having a good weekend. The first step in the review is to create the checklist. Please try to create it using the instructions above. Let me know if you have any difficulties with it. Thanks again!

rcannood · 2023-05-01T18:28:08Z

👍

rcannood · 2023-05-01T18:28:21Z

Review checklist for @rcannood

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/jhayer/baargin?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@jhayer) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

fboehm · 2023-05-09T11:07:08Z

@mberacochea - do you have any questions about starting the review? I suggest that you first create a checklist using the command listed above.

mberacochea · 2023-05-11T07:24:11Z

@mberacochea - do you have any questions about starting the review? I suggest that you first create a checklist using the command listed above.

No, that is OK, thanks... I just been busy.

mberacochea · 2023-05-11T07:26:47Z

Review checklist for @mberacochea

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/jhayer/baargin?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@jhayer) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

fboehm · 2023-05-23T13:00:25Z

@mberacochea - how is the review going? Please feel free to leave comments for the author to improve the submission. If you have any questions, please ask me. Thanks again!

mberacochea · 2023-05-24T15:46:22Z

@mberacochea - how is the review going? Please feel free to leave comments for the author to improve the submission. If you have any questions, please ask me. Thanks again!

Hey.. apologies this is taking so long. I'll get my review completed before the end of the week.

fboehm · 2023-05-24T17:05:01Z

@jhayer - how are the revisions going? Please recognize that you'll need to address any issues that are raised by one or both reviewers. So if your team has the capacity to revise the submission to address the open issues, please feel free to do so now.

jhayer · 2023-05-26T08:22:22Z

@fboehm - Thank you it's ongoing (slowly, also a bit busy ATM). We are making PRs for addressing each comment from @rcannood

mberacochea · 2023-05-28T17:26:41Z

Hey, my inital review is done -> jhayer/baargin#26

jhayer · 2023-06-15T20:57:04Z

Hi, We addressed most of your comments by several PRs (linked to issues numbers).
We would like to merge all the PRs before proceeding with the remaining issues (tests: issues #47 and #48, and release: #44).
Could you please @rcannood and @mberacochea check that all this is ok before we merge?
Thank you !

fboehm · 2023-06-16T16:16:12Z

Thank you, @jhayer! I'll let @rcannood and @mberacochea comment here once they get a chance to look at the revisions.

fboehm · 2023-06-22T16:58:30Z

@rcannood & @mberacochea - please feel free to update us here as you review the changes. Thanks again!

fboehm · 2023-06-29T19:59:44Z

@rcannood @mberacochea - how are the reviews going? Please feel free to update us in this thread. Thanks again!

editorialbot · 2023-10-14T23:41:25Z

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/D41586-022-00228-X is OK
- 10.1038/nbt.3820 is OK
- 10.1128/mSystems.00190-20 is OK
- 10.1093/BIOINFORMATICS/BTY560 is OK
- 10.1002/CPBI.102 is OK
- 10.1371/JOURNAL.PCBI.1005595 is OK
- 10.1186/S13059-019-1891-0 is OK
- 10.1038/S41596-022-00738-Y is OK
- 10.1093/BIOINFORMATICS/BTT086 is OK
- 10.1093/MOLBEV/MSAB199 is OK
- 10.1128/AAC.02412-14 is OK
- 10.1099/MGEN.0.000398 is OK
- 10.1093/NAR/GKAC920 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-021-91456-0 is OK
- 10.1093/BIOINFORMATICS/BTU153 is OK
- 10.1099/MGEN.0.000685 is OK
- 10.1093/BIOINFORMATICS/BTV421 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

fboehm · 2023-10-14T23:48:09Z

@jhayer - the manuscript (ie, paper.pdf) looks great! I have no suggestions for improvements, nor did I find any typos.

I also can confirm that the hyperlinks in the bibliography direct to the correct target urls.

fboehm · 2023-10-14T23:48:42Z

@jhayer - there are some issues with the zenodo archive:

It looks like the names need reformatting. Please see the above screenshot for a sense of what I see when I click on the link that you've provided.

Please fix this and notify me when it's resolved. Thanks again!

jhayer · 2023-10-16T07:34:57Z

@fboehm - Thanks!! I have now fixed our names on Zenodo.

fboehm · 2023-10-17T13:44:50Z

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.8386399 as archive

editorialbot · 2023-10-17T13:44:52Z

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.8386399

fboehm · 2023-10-17T13:45:42Z

@editorialbot set v1.0.0 as version

editorialbot · 2023-10-17T13:45:44Z

Done! version is now v1.0.0

fboehm · 2023-10-17T13:46:09Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2023-10-17T13:46:11Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2023-10-17T13:46:15Z

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/D41586-022-00228-X is OK
- 10.1038/nbt.3820 is OK
- 10.1128/mSystems.00190-20 is OK
- 10.1093/BIOINFORMATICS/BTY560 is OK
- 10.1002/CPBI.102 is OK
- 10.1371/JOURNAL.PCBI.1005595 is OK
- 10.1186/S13059-019-1891-0 is OK
- 10.1038/S41596-022-00738-Y is OK
- 10.1093/BIOINFORMATICS/BTT086 is OK
- 10.1093/MOLBEV/MSAB199 is OK
- 10.1128/AAC.02412-14 is OK
- 10.1099/MGEN.0.000398 is OK
- 10.1093/NAR/GKAC920 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-021-91456-0 is OK
- 10.1093/BIOINFORMATICS/BTU153 is OK
- 10.1099/MGEN.0.000685 is OK
- 10.1093/BIOINFORMATICS/BTV421 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-10-17T13:48:32Z

👋 @openjournals/bcm-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#4700, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-10-18T13:30:42Z

@jhayer I am the EiC on this track and here to help with final steps. I have checked this review, the paper, the repository, and the archive. Most seems in order. I do have the below points which need your attention.

Please amend the version tag listed on your archive link to match v1.0.0, it currently says v1
Your text features British English (e.g. analysed and customise) as well as American English (e.g. standardize, parallelize, and summarize), please amend so you consistently use one.
Check if ...using MLST tool... should be rewritten as ...using the MLST tool...
Currently you have cited a URL using the following .bib file entry:

@misc{Seemann:2022,
author = {Seemann, Torsten},
booktitle = {https://github.com/tseemann/mlst},
mendeley-groups = {Chile_ESBLEcoli},
title = {{MLST: https://github.com/tseemann/mlst}},
year = {2022}
}

I would recommend that you alter it to have the URL in a url field so it renders properly in the references (note I also fixed the title).

@misc{Seemann:2022,
author = {Seemann, Torsten},
title = {mlst},
year = {2022},
url = "https://github.com/tseemann/mlst"
}

fboehm · 2023-10-18T15:22:01Z

@jhayer I am the EiC on this track and here to help with final steps. I have checked this review, the paper, the repository, and the archive. Most seems in order. I do have the below points which need your attention.

Please amend the version tag listed on your archive link to match v1.0.0, it currently says v1

Your text features British English (e.g. analysed and customise) as well as American English (e.g. standardize, parallelize, and summarize), please amend so you consistently use one.

Check if ...using MLST tool... should be rewritten as ...using the MLST tool...

Currently you have cited a URL using the following .bib file entry:
@misc{Seemann:2022,
author = {Seemann, Torsten},
booktitle = {https://github.com/tseemann/mlst},
mendeley-groups = {Chile_ESBLEcoli},
title = {{MLST: https://github.com/tseemann/mlst}},
year = {2022}
}
I would recommend that you alter it to have the URL in a url field so it renders properly in the references (note I also fixed the title).
@misc{Seemann:2022,
author = {Seemann, Torsten},
title = {mlst},
year = {2022},
url = "https://github.com/tseemann/mlst"
}

Thanks, @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman, for spotting these issues. I'll be sure to look for similar issues in future submissions.

jhayer · 2023-10-19T09:51:22Z

Thanks @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman - I have now fixed all the points you listed.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-10-19T09:53:45Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2023-10-19T09:55:51Z

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-10-19T10:02:41Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2023-10-19T10:02:43Z

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2023-10-19T10:05:09Z

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Hayer
  given-names: Juliette
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4899-9637"
- family-names: Dainat
  given-names: Jacques
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6629-0173"
- family-names: Marcy
  given-names: Ella
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6000-1665"
- family-names: Bañuls
  given-names: Anne-Laure
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2106-8667"
contact:
- family-names: Hayer
  given-names: Juliette
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4899-9637"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8386399
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Hayer
    given-names: Juliette
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4899-9637"
  - family-names: Dainat
    given-names: Jacques
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6629-0173"
  - family-names: Marcy
    given-names: Ella
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6000-1665"
  - family-names: Bañuls
    given-names: Anne-Laure
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2106-8667"
  date-published: 2023-10-19
  doi: 10.21105/joss.05397
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 90
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 5397
  title: "Baargin: a Nextflow workflow for the automatic analysis of
    bacterial genomics data with a focus on Antimicrobial Resistance"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05397"
  volume: 8
title: "Baargin: a Nextflow workflow for the automatic analysis of
  bacterial genomics data with a focus on Antimicrobial Resistance"

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

editorialbot · 2023-10-19T10:05:14Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2023-10-19T10:05:14Z

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.05397 joss-papers#4705
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05397
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-10-19T10:18:39Z

@jhayer congratulations on this JOSS publication!

Thanks for editing @fboehm

And a special thanks to the reviewers: @mberacochea, @rcannood

editorialbot · 2023-10-19T10:18:41Z

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05397/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05397)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05397">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05397/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05397/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05397

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The 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:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

editorialbot added Nextflow Python review TeX Track: 2 (BCM) Biomedical Engineering, Biosciences, Chemistry, and Materials labels Apr 22, 2023

editorialbot assigned fboehm Apr 22, 2023

editorialbot mentioned this issue Apr 22, 2023

[PRE REVIEW]: Baargin: a Nextflow workflow for the automatic analysis of bacterial genomics data with a focus on Antimicrobial Resistance #5249

Closed

rcannood mentioned this issue May 9, 2023

[JOSS] @rcannood's feedback for the JOSS submission jhayer/baargin#13

Closed

11 tasks

mberacochea mentioned this issue May 26, 2023

[JOSS] @mberacochea's feedback for the JOSS submission jhayer/baargin#26

Closed

17 tasks

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Oct 17, 2023

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Oct 19, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman closed this as completed Oct 19, 2023

editorialbot mentioned this issue Sep 27, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: GraphBin-Tk: assembly graph-based metagenomic binning toolkit #7296

Open

editorialbot mentioned this issue Dec 3, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: Prokaryome: A Comprehensive WDL-Based Workflow for Prokaryotic Genome Assembly, Polishing, Annotation, and Visualization #7553

Open

[REVIEW]: Baargin: a Nextflow workflow for the automatic analysis of bacterial genomics data with a focus on Antimicrobial Resistance #5397

[REVIEW]: Baargin: a Nextflow workflow for the automatic analysis of bacterial genomics data with a focus on Antimicrobial Resistance #5397

Comments

editorialbot commented Apr 22, 2023 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Apr 22, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 22, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 22, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 22, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 22, 2023

fboehm commented Apr 25, 2023

fboehm commented Apr 30, 2023

rcannood commented May 1, 2023 • edited Loading

rcannood commented May 1, 2023 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @rcannood

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

fboehm commented May 9, 2023

mberacochea commented May 11, 2023

mberacochea commented May 11, 2023 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @mberacochea

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

fboehm commented May 23, 2023

mberacochea commented May 24, 2023

fboehm commented May 24, 2023

jhayer commented May 26, 2023

mberacochea commented May 28, 2023

jhayer commented Jun 15, 2023

fboehm commented Jun 16, 2023

fboehm commented Jun 22, 2023

fboehm commented Jun 29, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 14, 2023

fboehm commented Oct 14, 2023

fboehm commented Oct 14, 2023 • edited Loading

jhayer commented Oct 16, 2023

fboehm commented Oct 17, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 17, 2023

fboehm commented Oct 17, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 17, 2023

fboehm commented Oct 17, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 17, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 17, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 17, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Oct 18, 2023 • edited Loading

fboehm commented Oct 18, 2023

jhayer commented Oct 19, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Oct 19, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 19, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Oct 19, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 19, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 19, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 19, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 19, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Oct 19, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 19, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 22, 2023 •

edited

Loading

rcannood commented May 1, 2023 •

edited

Loading

rcannood commented May 1, 2023 •

edited

Loading

mberacochea commented May 11, 2023 •

edited

Loading

fboehm commented Oct 14, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Oct 18, 2023 •

edited

Loading