Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
[REVIEW]: Cine: A solar-pumped fluorescence model for cometary atmospheres #182
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.)
Conflict of interest
referenced this issue
Feb 13, 2017
If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As as reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all JOSS reviews
To fix this do the following two things:
For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
One higher-level question (and the reason for the one un-checked item above) is the lack of API documentation. I think this might be intentional (see migueldvb/cine#5), but if not, that needs to be rectified.
One other procedural question for @arfon: in the process of doing this review I created a PR that @migueldvb merged (it was easier just to do that). Nominally I suppose that would now make me a co-author given that I have a commit in the repo. But of course that would look like a weird conflict-of-interest. Is there a policy for how this should work? (I'm perfectly fine not being an author, as it's a very minor change... But this is also sort of an academic curiosity.)
This was referenced
Feb 22, 2017
Great question @eteq. I'm in the same situation for many of the submissions as I make small edits to the
Does that sound reasonable?
@eteq thank you for the review.
I have clarified that the code is supposed to be run as a script in the README file. In the future it could be useful to be imported into python when defining the input model using python in the excitation code LIME is available. There is some work done in this direction but it has not yet been merged into LIME and this may take some time...
The missing orcid in the paper is because the co-author does not have an identifier yet, although he is interested in getting one. I will leave the issue open as a reminder but perhaps we should not wait for this if all the other requirements are met.
Alright, great @migueldvb.
@arfon, the author has addressed my concerns, so I think I can recommend this paper for acceptance. There is one question remaining, though: as indicated in migueldvb/cine#1, one of the co-authors doesn't have an orcid yet, but @migueldvb thinks he might get one later. Is it possible to update the author list after the facts and have whatever metadata is relevant be updated, or is the orcid a now-or-nothing thing?
I was also wondering if the paper could be updated with the orcid identifier later... If the paper can be accepted as it is with a missing orcid for one author, I would go ahead without it and close the issue in the repo.
On Sunday, March 5, 2017, Arfon Smith ***@***.***> wrote: Is it possible to update the author list after the facts and have
whatever metadata is relevant be updated, or is the orcid a now-or-nothing thing?
It's now or never I'm afraid. We only update paper metadata if there's
been an error with a submission.
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.<
@migueldvb - 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.