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]: perccalc: An R package for estimating percentiles from categorical variables #1796
Comments
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @briatte, @amoeba 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/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:
For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
|
|
BTW, @briatte, thanks for volunteering to review! (I took you at your word...) |
@majensen No problem. I'm planning to review the package next week, probably Thursday or Friday. |
Hey @majensen, @cimentadaj, I've conducted my first pass at the review checklist and things look very good overall. I have some items I'd like @cimentadaj to address so at this point my review is a conditional accept. See: cimentadaj/perccalc#2. |
Hi @majensen, @cimentadaj and @amoeba I'm also done with my review: conditional accept with very minor revisions, some of which are nitpicky to the point that @cimentadaj might reasonably decide to ignore them entirely. @amoeba -- There's a small risk that I might have accidentally checked one item on your review list. I'm very sorry for that -- please accept my apologies: I'm still learning to do JOSS reviews, plus it was early morning and I had had only one coffee (this has been fixed since). |
Hi everyone Thanks for the reviews. I'm probably gonna check them out first week of November and finish them at that time. Is that good? |
@cimentadaj sounds good to me. That accords with my schedule too :D |
I've answered to all comments from both reviewers here. As I outlined there, I'm happy to review some points if they feel like their points weren't addressed. Thank you both for reviewing the paper/package, the comments have been very helpful to ship the next version to CRAN flawlessly! |
@whedon generate pdf |
|
@briatte, @amoeba -- based on @cimentadaj comments at issue 2, are you guys prepared to check off the remaining boxes? |
@majensen, we're almost there. Still elucidating whether we keep/remove the example section. I think we'll have this figured out by the end of the week. |
@whedon check references |
|
|
@majensen my review is now an Accept after @cimentadaj 's recent change to the paper, removing the examples, as per cimentadaj/perccalc#2 (comment). |
Same here, I'm also Accept at that stage. |
@amoeba and @briatte thanks very much; and thanks @cimentadaj for your hard work and responsiveness. I will perform my final proofreading tasks - might lead to a PR - and then will make the formal recommendation. |
(right after @cimentadaj merges the review branch...) |
@whedon generate pdf |
@whedon generate pdf |
|
@whedon check references |
|
|
There are a number of other small changes, which I've suggested fixes for in cimentadaj/perccalc#8 - please merge, or let me know which you disagree with. |
👋 @briatte - There are a number of checkboxes that you didn't check. Can you check them please, or explain why they can't yet be checked? |
@whedon generate pdf |
|
Hey @briatte, sorry, we need you to check off the rest of the boxes on your review - thanks |
@danielskatz : My guess is @briatte is OOO, since he is usu. very responsive. In view of comment from @briatte 's comment at #1796 (comment) and previous, I would recommend moving forward with the publication. |
If you are sure this is ok, please check the missing box for @briatte, then let me know, and I will do the further processing in the next 24 hours. |
@danielskatz boxes checked thanks |
@whedon accept |
|
|
Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#1164 If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#1164, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag
|
@whedon accept deposit=true |
|
🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet 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 to @briatte and @amoeba for reviewing and @majensen for editing! |
🎉🎉🎉 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:
|
Thanks to everyone for the great review! |
Submitting author: @cimentadaj (Jorge Cimentada)
Repository: https://github.com/cimentadaj/perccalc/
Version: v1.0.5
Editor: @majensen
Reviewer: @briatte, @amoeba
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3559855
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
@briatte & @amoeba, 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 @majensen know.
✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨
Review checklist for @briatte
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
Review checklist for @amoeba
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: