-
-
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]: kinisi: Bayesian analysis of mass transport from molecular dynamics simulations #5984
Comments
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:
For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
|
|
Wordcount for |
|
Hi @dengzeyu & @hmacdope, thanks again for agreeing to review this package. First of all, please run this command to generate the review checklist:
and tick the boxes as you go through the submission. The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns, please let me know. We are aiming to have the review done in two weeks if possible - If you need more time, please let me know here in this issue. For comments and queries, you can open issues/PRs directly in the package's repository. Please mention this issue in the tickets opened in order to keep tracking. |
@editorialbot add @dengzeyu as reviewer |
@dengzeyu added to the reviewers list! |
@editorialbot remove @denzeyu from reviewers |
@denzeyu removed from the reviewers list! |
Err typo.... Apologies for the spam, my bad 😿 |
@zhubonan, looks like the old title has been carried over to this issue. Will that cause the editoralbot other problems down the line? |
My guess is that the metadata is stored based on the title upon submission. It should affect the review process. We just to the make sure it is corrected in the system before acceptance. |
I have just updated the title of this issue. It should not give rise to problem as things are tracked by the integer issue ids. |
Review checklist for @dengzeyuConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
@editorialbot generate pdf |
There has been an update to the author list. Fixing some affiliations and adding the latest contributor. |
Hi @hmacdope, how is your review going? |
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.10651128 as archive |
Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.10651128 |
@editorialbot check references |
|
Hi @arm61, thanks for making the new release! Could you please update the author affiliation of the Zenodo archive? It should match those stated in the paper. The Zenodo author list can be updated without making a new DOI (since it is metadata). |
Annoyingly, the Zenodo archive didn't read the affiliations correctly from the CITATION.cff file. I will ask @bjmorgan to sort the Zenodo deposit as he is the owner. |
That's it sorted now @zhubonan! |
@editorialbot generate pdf |
Sorry just caught another missing affiliation. All matching now. |
@editorialbot recommend-accept |
|
|
👋 @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#5014, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command |
@arm61 as AEiC I will now help to process final steps for acceptance in JOSS. I have checked this review, your repository, the paper, and the archive link. All seems in order so I will now process this for acceptance. I do however have the following recommendation, if you do not already, please consider linking to the CONTRIBUTING.md file from the README and documentation. Currently I can see the file, but from having a quick look I cannot see how folks would end up there other than looking for an CONTRIBUTING.md document. A short section in your README that links to it may be nice. |
@editorialbot accept |
|
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
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. |
🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot 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... |
🚀🚀🚀 Thanks all for the help in getting this accepted! Great editing work from @zhubonan, thanks for the constructive reviews @hmacdope and @dengzeyu. @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman I have added a comment on the README about the CONTRIBUTING guidance too. Cheers for pointing that out. |
🎉🎉🎉 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! 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:
|
@arm61 congratulations! 🎉🎉 |
Submitting author: @arm61 (Andrew McCluskey)
Repository: https://github.com/bjmorgan/kinisi/
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 1.0.0
Editor: @zhubonan
Reviewers: @hmacdope, @dengzeyu
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10651128
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
@denzeyu & @hmacdope, 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:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @zhubonan 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 @dengzeyu
📝 Checklist for @hmacdope
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: