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]: Explaining Black-Box Models through Counterfactuals #130
Comments
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @jmaces, @kartikeyrinwa 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/JuliaCon/proceedings-review) 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:
|
Failed to discover a |
Wordcount for |
OK, @jmaces is no longer a reviewer |
|
@pat-alt can you check the review posted here: #103 (comment) |
|
@whedon generate pdf |
@matbesancon @kartikeyrinwa I've now edited according to #103 (comment). In addition to the helpful suggestions, I have incorporated recent updates to the package including:
I noted that the boxes for testing and contribution guidelines in the Documentation section were unticked. We do run tests, of course - should that be explained in the docs? As for contribution guidelines, we have a section in the docs and the README - should we improve this somehow? Thanks again! |
👋 @kartikeyrinwa, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder). |
ReviewAs the authors have sufficiently address my previous comments, I recommend acceptance of the paper. Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Paper format
Content
|
@whedon accept |
To recommend a paper to be accepted use |
@whedon recommend-accept |
No archive DOI set. Exiting... |
@whedon set v0.1.13 as version |
OK. v0.1.13 is the version. |
@pat-alt the last step we will need will be making an archive on Zenodo of the code on the repository, and writing the DOI here |
OK. 10.5281/zenodo.8239379 is the archive. |
@whedon recommend-accept |
|
👋 @JuliaCon/jcon-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published. Check final proof 👉 JuliaCon/proceedings-papers#67 If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in JuliaCon/proceedings-papers#67, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag
|
|
@pat-alt can you check the DOIs above and add them to your bib file? |
if necessary. Let me know once this is done |
@whedon commands |
Here are some things you can ask me to do:
|
@whedon check references |
|
@whedon check references |
|
@whedon generate pdf |
@matbesancon ok that's all done now. Have a good weekend 😃 |
@whedon recommend-accept |
|
👋 @JuliaCon/jcon-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published. Check final proof 👉 JuliaCon/proceedings-papers#69 If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in JuliaCon/proceedings-papers#69, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag
|
|
@whedon accept deposit=true |
|
🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JCON! 🚨🚨🚨 Here's what you must now do:
Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team... |
thanks everyone for submitting and reviewing :) |
🎉🎉🎉 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! JuliaCon Proceedings 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:
|
Thank you very much for all your help, very happy to see this go out 🥳 |
Submitting author: @pat-alt (Patrick Altmeyer)
Repository: https://github.com/pat-alt/CounterfactualExplanations.jl
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.1.14
Editor:
Reviewers: @kartikeyrinwa
Archive:
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
@jmaces & @kartikeyrinwa, 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 @matbesancon 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 @jmaces
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Paper format
paper.tex
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?Content
Review checklist for @kartikeyrinwa
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Paper format
paper.tex
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?Content
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: