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]: Hickle: A HDF5-based Python pickle replacement #1115
Comments
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @betteridiot 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/joss-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:
For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
|
|
Thank you. I see the checklist and proof. I will get back to you as soon as possible. |
@telegraphic, there is a DOI available for Raffel 2016: https://doi.org/10.7916/D8N58MHV |
Thanks @betteridiot -- I've added contribution guidelines and the DOI for Raffel 2016 |
@telegraphic, @arfon: Some basic results and insights for the review process of `hickle` for JoSS
Both telegraphic/hickle#79 and telegraphic/hickle#80 appear to be addressed by the author. These issues can be closed now. I opened Issues telegraphic/hickle#82 and telegraphic/hickle#83 to address some specific items. I request your input @arfon on telegraphic/hickle#82 specifically though. I also made a PR at telegraphic/hickle#81 to address some very minor compatibility issues. Lastly, I would like to point @telegraphic towards https://github.com/conda-forge/staged-recipes for a very simple way of adding If you need any help or guidance, I am available. I believe that once these items are addressed, |
@arfon, @telegraphic, Review workflow for openjournals/joss-reviews#1115
Thanks @betteridiot, I very much appreciate your time on this! I've tried to address all the issues and improved the documentation in the README.md. Working on the conda recipe now |
conda recipe is working! conda-forge/staged-recipes#7268 |
@arfon Looks good on my end. |
Great, thanks @betteridiot.
I think where we've got to here is good with me. |
@telegraphic - At this point could you make an archive of the reviewed software in Zenodo/figshare/other service and update this thread with the DOI of the archive? I can then move forward with accepting the submission. |
Hi @arfon -- record is https://zenodo.org/record/2345649, and DOI is 10.5281/zenodo.2345649. @betteridiot -- after some fiddling I've gotten a conda-forge recipe too, waiting on checks (conda-forge/staged-recipes#7268) |
@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.2345649 as archive |
OK. 10.5281/zenodo.2345649 is the archive. |
@whedon accept |
|
Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#121 If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#121, 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 JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨 Here's what you must now do:
Any issues? notify your editorial technical team... |
@betteridiot - many thanks for your review here ✨ @telegraphic - your paper is now accepted into JOSS ⚡🚀💥 |
🎉🎉🎉 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! 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:
|
Fantastic! Thanks @arfon and @betteridiot! 🎈 🎈 |
Submitting author: @telegraphic (Danny Price)
Repository: https://github.com/telegraphic/hickle
Version: v3.2.2
Editor: @arfon
Reviewer: @betteridiot
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.2345649
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) 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
@betteridiot, 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.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @arfon know.
✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨
Review checklist for @betteridiot
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
paper.md
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: