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]: M4: Metals, Magnets, and Miscellaneous Materials #61

Open
whedon opened this issue Jul 22, 2019 · 4 comments

Comments

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator

commented Jul 22, 2019

Submitting author: @albi3ro (Christina Colleen Lee)
Repository: https://github.com/albi3ro/M4
Version: v_jose-submit
Editor: @katyhuff
Reviewer: @IanHawke, @william-pfalzgraff
Archive: Pending

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/f84b319959fff4dcab2da564579512cc"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/f84b319959fff4dcab2da564579512cc/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/f84b319959fff4dcab2da564579512cc/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/f84b319959fff4dcab2da564579512cc)

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

@IanHawke & @william-pfalzgraff, 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 @IanHawke

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
  • License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
  • Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (v_jose-submit)?
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@albi3ro) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
  • Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
  • Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
  • Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

  • Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
  • Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
  • Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
  • Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
  • Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

  • Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
  • A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
  • Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
  • Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
  • Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
  • Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
  • References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @william-pfalzgraff

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
  • License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
  • Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (v_jose-submit)?
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@albi3ro) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
  • Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
  • Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
  • Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

  • Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
  • Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
  • Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
  • Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
  • Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

  • Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
  • A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
  • Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
  • Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
  • Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
  • Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
  • References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Jul 22, 2019

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @IanHawke, @william-pfalzgraff it looks like you're currently assigned to review 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

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

@whedon generate pdf
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Jul 22, 2019

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Jul 22, 2019

@IanHawke

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Aug 15, 2019

As an update on where this stands with me:

  • Two PRs linked in the pre-review thread (albi3ro/M4#7 , albi3ro/M4#8) have been merged. The one about JuliaBox needs revisiting by me, as whilst the PR fixed the README, this change needs propagating to the front page of the website as well.
  • One issue linked in the pre-review thread (albi3ro/M4#9) has not yet been addressed yet, but there's lots more content stuff to look at.
  • I've gone through the first two sections (General, Prerequisites Required) and have a number of minor comments but few significant problems. Issues and PRs to come.
  • I think the paper is missing some of the key points above, particularly the Description (making the sequence clear will be an issue/PR soon) and the story (as some blog pages suggest that sections were used in classroom contexts, but others seem aimed at remote audiences).
  • I need to dig further into how the webpages are generated, as there are a few where the pages differ from the notebooks in substantive ways.

Hope to get through the rest of the material next week.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.