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

[REVIEW]: Emacs-reveal: A software bundle to create OER presentations #50

Closed
25 of 36 tasks
whedon opened this issue May 1, 2019 · 73 comments
Closed
25 of 36 tasks

[REVIEW]: Emacs-reveal: A software bundle to create OER presentations #50

whedon opened this issue May 1, 2019 · 73 comments
Assignees

Comments

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator

@whedon whedon commented May 1, 2019

Submitting author: @lechten (Jens Lechtenbörger)
Repository: https://gitlab.com/oer/emacs-reveal
Version: v3.0.3
Editor: @katyhuff
Reviewer: @jrosen48, @markgalassi
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3357438

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/51d19b9c42e3115a548acd4a1cad377b"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/51d19b9c42e3115a548acd4a1cad377b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/51d19b9c42e3115a548acd4a1cad377b/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/51d19b9c42e3115a548acd4a1cad377b)

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) 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

@jrosen48 & @markgalassi, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

  1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
  2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @katyhuff know.

Review checklist for @jrosen48

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
  • License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
  • Version: v3.0.3
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@lechten) made substantial contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

  • Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation? (and documentation is sufficient?)
  • 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 the need for this software 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?
  • Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
  • Tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function 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

  • Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
  • References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @markgalassi

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
  • License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
  • Version: v3.0.3
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@lechten) made substantial contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

  • Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation? (and documentation is sufficient?)
  • 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 the need for this software 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?
  • Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
  • Tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function 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

  • Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
  • References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented May 1, 2019

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @jrosen48, it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper 🎉.

Important

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/jose-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:

  1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews:

watching

  1. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

notifications

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

@whedon commands

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented May 1, 2019

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented May 1, 2019

@labarba
Copy link
Member

@labarba labarba commented May 12, 2019

👋 @jrosen48, @markgalassi — Folks, this is where the review happens. You both have a review checklist at the top, to guide you through the process by checking off items to review. The version item is something we can check off in the end, as we will ask the authors to do a release after any revisions. Statement of need should be a section in the paper (the checklist has it also in the Documentation, but that's optional).

Feel free to ask any questions here, and @katyhuff will help you out. You can also post questions to the author, or open issues in the submission repository.

Please tick off your Conflict of Interest and Code of Conduct items ASAP, so we all see the review has started. Thanks!

@markgalassi
Copy link

@markgalassi markgalassi commented May 15, 2019

Dear @katyhuff , this is my first time so I'm feeling awkward and it took me a while to get the flow going. I have checked off the items I am comfortable checking off. I see no submit button after checking them, so I'm guessing you record them in real time (but please tell me if I'm wrong). I have several suggestions for the paper. How does that back-and-forth go?

@labarba
Copy link
Member

@labarba labarba commented May 15, 2019

@markgalassi — You can post comments right here with revision requests to the author.

@katyhuff
Copy link
Member

@katyhuff katyhuff commented Jun 4, 2019

@jrosen48 : Sorry I've been out of touch here. What is the status of your review?
@markgalassi : Thanks for getting started. How is your review progress going? A JOSE review involves checking submissions against a checklist of essential features and details in the submitted work. You can leave your brief review comments here in the comments. We also encourage reviewers to file issues against the submitted repository’s issue tracker. When you have completed your review, please leave a comment in the review issue saying so.

@jrosen48
Copy link

@jrosen48 jrosen48 commented Jun 10, 2019

Hi all, I'm so sorry for the delay. I've moved through a few review items but have a few more to go. I will try to complete this by the end of this week (Friday, 6/14). I'm sorry again. Thanks!

@labarba
Copy link
Member

@labarba labarba commented Jun 10, 2019

@whedon remind @jrosen48 in 4 days

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jun 10, 2019

Reminder set for @jrosen48 in 4 days

@jrosen48
Copy link

@jrosen48 jrosen48 commented Jun 13, 2019

As they didn't appear here automatically (did I not create the link correctly? is this due to GitLab/GitHub differences?), here are issues I filed:

Regarding the statement of need in the paper: https://gitlab.com/oer/emacs-reveal/issues/9
Regarding tests: https://gitlab.com/oer/emacs-reveal/issues/10
Regarding examples: https://gitlab.com/oer/emacs-reveal/issues/11
Regarding installation: https://gitlab.com/oer/emacs-reveal/issues/12

@lechten
Copy link
Collaborator

@lechten lechten commented Jun 14, 2019

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jun 14, 2019

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jun 14, 2019

@lechten
Copy link
Collaborator

@lechten lechten commented Jun 14, 2019

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jun 14, 2019

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jun 14, 2019

@lechten
Copy link
Collaborator

@lechten lechten commented Jun 14, 2019

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jun 14, 2019

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jun 14, 2019

@lechten
Copy link
Collaborator

@lechten lechten commented Jun 14, 2019

Thanks, @jrosen48 for your feedback! I responded to your issues, and the new article proof reflects changes to the paper.

@jrosen48
Copy link

@jrosen48 jrosen48 commented Jun 14, 2019

Thanks @lechten - just responded to each of the comments (and have updated my review checklist accordingly!).

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jun 14, 2019

👋 @jrosen48, please update us on how your review is going.

@labarba
Copy link
Member

@labarba labarba commented Jun 15, 2019

That was your automated reminder that I set, @jrosen48. I see you could be getting close to recommending publication. What's your status, @markgalassi?

@labarba
Copy link
Member

@labarba labarba commented Jun 24, 2019

hi folks — I just sent an email to @markgalassi to ask for a status update. Stay tuned.

@katyhuff
Copy link
Member

@katyhuff katyhuff commented Jun 24, 2019

Thanks.

@lechten
Copy link
Collaborator

@lechten lechten commented Jul 30, 2019

@labarba, @markgalassi Any news on the status of this review? Anything that I could do?

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Aug 1, 2019

OK. v3.0.3 is the version.

@katyhuff
Copy link
Member

@katyhuff katyhuff commented Aug 1, 2019

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3357438 as archive

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Aug 1, 2019

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3357438 is the archive.

@katyhuff
Copy link
Member

@katyhuff katyhuff commented Aug 1, 2019

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Aug 1, 2019

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Aug 1, 2019

@labarba
Copy link
Member

@labarba labarba commented Aug 1, 2019

@jrosen48 — you still have an unchecked item in the checklist (Functionality documentation). Can you see if you're satisfied with that, and issue your recommendation here?

@jrosen48
Copy link

@jrosen48 jrosen48 commented Aug 1, 2019

HI @labarba, I'm sorry about that, I am satisfied with this (and have updated that item, accordingly!).

@katyhuff
Copy link
Member

@katyhuff katyhuff commented Aug 1, 2019

Thank you @jrosen48

@labarba I believe this is ready to accept!

@labarba
Copy link
Member

@labarba labarba commented Aug 3, 2019

@lechten — you have included the software repository in the list of references. JOSE papers have the repository (and archive) added as part of the margin decorators on the first page, so we ask that you don't add it in the text or references.

@labarba
Copy link
Member

@labarba labarba commented Aug 3, 2019

In the section on Functionality, I find a couple of in-text citations, meaning, the citation is a part of speech in a sentence. E.g. "see Smith (2009)," or "as described in Smith (2009)." In those cases, please use the correct Citation syntax to suppress the brackets.

@lechten
Copy link
Collaborator

@lechten lechten commented Aug 4, 2019

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Aug 4, 2019

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Aug 4, 2019

@lechten
Copy link
Collaborator

@lechten lechten commented Aug 4, 2019

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Aug 4, 2019

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Aug 4, 2019

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

@labarba
Copy link
Member

@labarba labarba commented Aug 4, 2019

@whedon accept

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Aug 4, 2019

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Aug 4, 2019

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/jose-papers#38

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/jose-papers#38, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

@labarba
Copy link
Member

@labarba labarba commented Aug 4, 2019

@whedon accept deposit=true

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Aug 4, 2019

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

@lechten
Copy link
Collaborator

@lechten lechten commented Aug 4, 2019

@labarba Wow, that was fast. Many thanks for checking the citations. I rewrote some parts to avoid nested parentheses and parentheses following each other, which does indeed look much better.

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Aug 4, 2019

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

Here's what you must now do:

  1. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 openjournals/jose-papers#39
  2. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00050
  3. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
  4. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

@labarba
Copy link
Member

@labarba labarba commented Aug 4, 2019

Congratulations, @lechten, your JOSE paper is now published! 🚀

Sincere thanks to our editor: @katyhuff, and the reviewers: @jrosen48, @markgalassi — we greatly appreciate your contribution to JOSE 🙏

@labarba labarba closed this as completed Aug 4, 2019
@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Aug 4, 2019

🎉🎉🎉 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://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00050/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00050)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00050">
  <img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00050/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00050/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00050

This is how it will look in your documentation:

DOI

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Education 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:

@labarba
Copy link
Member

@labarba labarba commented Aug 4, 2019

@lechten
Copy link
Collaborator

@lechten lechten commented Aug 4, 2019

@jrosen48, @katyhuff, @labarba, @markgalassi Many thanks to all of you, I learned a lot during this process!

I would be happy to help in the future and signed up as reviewer.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants