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]: Cutepeaks: A modern viewer for Sanger trace file #3457
Comments
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @tobiasrausch, @wdecoster it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper 🎉. Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post. ⭐ 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:
|
|
Failed to discover a |
|
proof, line 27: The regular expression |
Hi @dridk, @tobiasrausch, and @lpantano This is the first time I review for JOSS, so please let me know if I make a mistake. The process appears to be very clear though. The installation instructions for Linux mention
My operating system is Ubuntu 21.04. Cheers, |
@wdecoster sorry for that ! AppImage has been build on a previous system. Should works ! I just tested it |
Yes - I can confirm that works! |
Update documentations ( community and license ) openjournals/joss-reviews#3457 (comment)
Hi @dridk, looking at the checklist both the paper and documentation miss a "statement of need", and the paper should additionally get a comparison to the "State of the field" - could you look into adding these sections? |
Hi @wdecoster , Hi @tobiasrausch About testing, I compile the code each time from github action Otherwise, it can be tested manually with example files available from the example folder. |
👋 @tobiasrausch, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder). |
👋 @wdecoster, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder). |
Hi @dridk, I think GitHub defaults to a contributing.md file in case you want to add this. Here is the link for your repo. Did you have a chance to check your regex in the paper? I believe this should be AC+T and not AC.+T from the examples you show afterwards. |
@tobiasrausch Oups.. didn't see your comment about regexp.. I just fixed it ! |
@whedon generate pdf |
I think for a tool like this the best automated testing is testing if it compiles - so I think that requirement is fulfilled. |
@whedon check references |
|
Hi @dridk, At this point could you:
I can then move forward with accepting the submission. |
Hi @lpantano , here are the required informations
|
@whedon generate pdf |
@whedon set v0.2.3 as version |
OK. v0.2.3 is the version. |
@dridk, thank you for doing this. Can you make the zenodo has the same title than the paper? thanks |
@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.5148809 as archive |
OK. 10.5281/zenodo.5148809 is the archive. |
@whedon recommend-accept |
|
|
👋 @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published. Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#2489 If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#2489, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag
|
I'm sorry @dridk, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editor-in-chiefs are allowed to do. |
@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... |
@tobiasrausch, @wdecoster – many thanks for your reviews here and to @lpantano for editing this submission! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you ✨ @dridk – your paper is now accepted and published in 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:
|
Thanks you all ! |
Submitting author: @dridk (sacha schutz)
Repository: https://github.com/labsquare/CutePeaks
Version: v0.2.3
Editor: @lpantano
Reviewer: @tobiasrausch, @wdecoster
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5148809
Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.
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
@tobiasrausch & @wdecoster, 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 @lpantano know.
✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨
Review checklist for @tobiasrausch
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
Review checklist for @wdecoster
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: