Skip to content
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

[PRE REVIEW]: Acanthophis: a comprehensive plant hologenomics pipeline #5953

Closed
editorialbot opened this issue Oct 15, 2023 · 45 comments
Closed
Assignees
Labels
Dockerfile pre-review Python Shell Track: 2 (BCM) Biomedical Engineering, Biosciences, Chemistry, and Materials

Comments

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator

editorialbot commented Oct 15, 2023

Submitting author: @kdm9 (Kevin Murray)
Repository: https://github.com/kdm9/Acanthophis
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @marcosvital
Reviewers: @bricoletc, @gbouras13, @abhishektiwari
Managing EiC: Kevin M. Moerman

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/89901b387b0acb458c0efe6637fad366"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/89901b387b0acb458c0efe6637fad366/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/89901b387b0acb458c0efe6637fad366/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/89901b387b0acb458c0efe6637fad366)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @kdm9. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@kdm9 if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands
@editorialbot editorialbot added pre-review Track: 2 (BCM) Biomedical Engineering, Biosciences, Chemistry, and Materials labels Oct 15, 2023
@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Hello human, 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
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.03 s (2080.0 files/s, 102314.6 lines/s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                      files          blank        comment           code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAML                             35             64            192            897
Markdown                          7            171              0            600
TeX                               1             27              0            464
Python                            7             71             58            303
Bourne Again Shell                4             23             26            113
Bourne Shell                      7              9             16             48
TOML                              1              1              0             11
Dockerfile                        1              1              0              4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                             63            367            292           2440
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1101/2021.08.07.455511 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05627 is OK
- 10.1038/nmeth.3176 is OK
- 10.1093/gigascience/giab008 is OK
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw354 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2309.15884 is OK
- 10.1101/2022.04.08.487684 is OK
- 10.1101/gr.210641.116 is OK
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts480 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.4677629 is OK
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352 is OK
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr509 is OK
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty191 is OK
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab705 is OK
- 10.1186/1756-0500-5-337 is OK
- 10.7717/peerj-cs.104 is OK
- 10.1038/ncomms11257 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002311 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005727 is OK
- 10.1111/mec.15287 is OK
- 10.1186/s13059-016-0997-x is OK
- 10.1038/s41396-020-0665-8 is OK
- 10.1186/s13104-016-1900-2 is OK
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt468 is OK
- 10.6084/m9.figshare.13174337.v1 is OK
- 10.1186/s13059-019-1891-0 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.7728364 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Wordcount for paper.md is 932

@kdm9
Copy link

kdm9 commented Oct 15, 2023

FYI: cloc doesn't count the actual code of Acanthophis, which is in snakemake *.rules files:

$ wc -l acanthophis/template/workflow/Snakefile acanthophis/template/workflow/rules/*.rules
   33 acanthophis/template/workflow/Snakefile
  347 acanthophis/template/workflow/rules/align.rules
  331 acanthophis/template/workflow/rules/base.rules
  121 acanthophis/template/workflow/rules/denovo.rules
  315 acanthophis/template/workflow/rules/metagenome.rules
  339 acanthophis/template/workflow/rules/reads.rules
  207 acanthophis/template/workflow/rules/sampleset.rules
  278 acanthophis/template/workflow/rules/taxonid.rules
  408 acanthophis/template/workflow/rules/varcall.rules
   46 acanthophis/template/workflow/rules/variantannotation.rules
 2425 total

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Copy link
Member

@editorialbot generate pdf

1 similar comment
@kdm9
Copy link

kdm9 commented Oct 18, 2023

@editorialbot generate pdf

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

ALPPACA - A tooL for Prokaryotic Phylogeny And Clustering Analysis
Submitting author: @hkaspersen
Handling editor: @csoneson (Active)
Reviewers: @mberacochea, @hseabolt, @rcannood
Similarity score: 0.8413

MetaGenePipe: An Automated, Portable Pipeline for Contig-based Functional and Taxonomic Analysis
Submitting author: @ParkvilleData
Handling editor: @jmschrei (Active)
Reviewers: @Ebedthan, @rjorton
Similarity score: 0.8341

Phylen: automatic phylogenetic reconstruction using the EggNOG database
Submitting author: @giraola
Handling editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman (Active)
Reviewers: @juanvillada
Similarity score: 0.8263

Corekaburra: pan-genome post-processing using core gene synteny
Submitting author: @milnus
Handling editor: @csoneson (Active)
Reviewers: @iferres, @asafpr
Similarity score: 0.8249

phyphy: Python package for facilitating the execution and parsing of HyPhy standard analyses
Submitting author: @sjspielman
Handling editor: @mgymrek (Retired)
Reviewers: @luizirber
Similarity score: 0.8223

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Copy link
Member

@editorialbot invite @marcosvital as editor

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

@marcosvital
Copy link

@editorialbot assign @marcosvital as editor

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Assigned! @marcosvital is now the editor

@marcosvital
Copy link

Hi, @kdm9, I will be the editor of your submission.

Please take a look at the manuscript proof you generated above, and check if it seems ok and ready to review. If you make any changes or corrections on it you can create a new version anytime. I saw a small type: Stage 6 is written as Stage 5.

At the same time, we can start assigning reviewers for you submission. We usually ask the authors for suggestions, so let me know if you have anyone in mind that could do this - you can paste the github profile of anyone you think that could do it (but please don't tag anyone yet).
You can also check and search using this list of people that have agreed to review for JOSS, and see if any of them may be suitable to review this submission.

@kdm9
Copy link

kdm9 commented Oct 19, 2023

Hi @marcosvital , thanks for editing!

I have fixed those and a few extra minor grammar/citation issues, and hopefully now after a

@editorialbot generate pdf

the PDF should be in a final draft state and ready to review.

Regarding reviewers, from that list I would suggest the following, if they have time:

(though I note a bit of a lack of plant genomics/informatics folks in JOSS -- I need to do some spruiking of JOSS in these circles it seems!!)

@kdm9

This comment was marked as outdated.

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

ALPPACA - A tooL for Prokaryotic Phylogeny And Clustering Analysis
Submitting author: @hkaspersen
Handling editor: @csoneson (Active)
Reviewers: @mberacochea, @hseabolt, @rcannood
Similarity score: 0.8396

MetaGenePipe: An Automated, Portable Pipeline for Contig-based Functional and Taxonomic Analysis
Submitting author: @ParkvilleData
Handling editor: @jmschrei (Active)
Reviewers: @Ebedthan, @rjorton
Similarity score: 0.8336

Phylen: automatic phylogenetic reconstruction using the EggNOG database
Submitting author: @giraola
Handling editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman (Active)
Reviewers: @juanvillada
Similarity score: 0.8271

Corekaburra: pan-genome post-processing using core gene synteny
Submitting author: @milnus
Handling editor: @csoneson (Active)
Reviewers: @iferres, @asafpr
Similarity score: 0.8239

chloroExtractor: extraction and assembly of the chloroplast genome from whole genome shotgun data
Submitting author: @greatfireball
Handling editor: @pjotrp (Retired)
Reviewers: @jdeligt
Similarity score: 0.8198

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

@kdm9
Copy link

kdm9 commented Oct 19, 2023

@editorialbot generate pdf

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

EUKulele: Taxonomic annotation of the unsung eukaryotic microbes
Submitting author: @akrinos
Handling editor: @will-rowe (Retired)
Reviewers: @johanneswerner, @jcmcnch
Similarity score: 0.8384

MetaGenePipe: An Automated, Portable Pipeline for Contig-based Functional and Taxonomic Analysis
Submitting author: @ParkvilleData
Handling editor: @jmschrei (Active)
Reviewers: @Ebedthan, @rjorton
Similarity score: 0.8296

Phylen: automatic phylogenetic reconstruction using the EggNOG database
Submitting author: @giraola
Handling editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman (Active)
Reviewers: @juanvillada
Similarity score: 0.8247

Corekaburra: pan-genome post-processing using core gene synteny
Submitting author: @milnus
Handling editor: @csoneson (Active)
Reviewers: @iferres, @asafpr
Similarity score: 0.8191

phyphy: Python package for facilitating the execution and parsing of HyPhy standard analyses
Submitting author: @sjspielman
Handling editor: @mgymrek (Retired)
Reviewers: @luizirber
Similarity score: 0.8178

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

@marcosvital
Copy link

Dear @aboffin, @gbouras13 and @bricoletc, would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS?

We carry out an open checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues, and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

This is still a pre-review issue, and once there are enough reviewers we will move on to a new issue where the review will take place. If you are not able to review, please let us know if you have recommendations for other reviewers that could help with this submission.

@gbouras13
Copy link

@marcosvital I'm happy to review this

@bricoletc
Copy link

@marcosvital @kdm9, yes, happily!

@gbouras13
Copy link

@editorialbot generate my checklist

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Checklists can only be created once the review has started in the review issue

@gbouras13
Copy link

Hi @marcosvital,

Just letting you know this is my first JOSS review - so please just prod me to do things if required.

George

@gbouras13
Copy link

sorry I just tried this as someone did it on my paper being reviewed at the moment - apologies.

@marcosvital
Copy link

sorry I just tried this as someone did it on my paper being reviewed at the moment - apologies.

No problem at all, this command will work once we start the review (which will happen in a different GitHub issue).

@marcosvital
Copy link

Thank you @gbouras13 and @bricoletc, we will start the review soon.

@marcosvital
Copy link

@editorialbot add @bricoletc as reviewer

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@bricoletc added to the reviewers list!

@marcosvital
Copy link

@editorialbot add @gbouras13 as reviewer

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@gbouras13 added to the reviewers list!

@marcosvital
Copy link

Dear @standage, would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS?

We carry out an open checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues, and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

This is still a pre-review issue, and once there are enough reviewers we will move on to a new issue where the review will take place. If you are not able to review, please let us know if you have recommendations for other reviewers that could help with this submission.

@standage
Copy link

standage commented Nov 7, 2023

Thank you for the invite @marcosvital, but I'm going to have to decline this time.

@aboffin
Copy link

aboffin commented Nov 7, 2023 via email

@marcosvital
Copy link

Thank you for letting me know, @aboffin and @standage.

@marcosvital
Copy link

Dear @camillescott, would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS?

We carry out an open checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues, and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

This is still a pre-review issue, and once there are enough reviewers we will move on to a new issue where the review will take place. If you are not able to review, please let us know if you have recommendations for other reviewers that could help with this submission.

@abhishektiwari
Copy link

@marcosvital I have used Snakemake pipelines, so open to review this paper. Feel free to assign me as a reviewer.

@marcosvital
Copy link

Thank you, @abhishektiwari

@marcosvital
Copy link

@editorialbot add @abhishektiwari as reviewer

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@abhishektiwari added to the reviewers list!

@marcosvital
Copy link

@editorialbot start review

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

OK, I've started the review over in #6062.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Dockerfile pre-review Python Shell Track: 2 (BCM) Biomedical Engineering, Biosciences, Chemistry, and Materials
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

9 participants