-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 37
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]: ClusterValidityIndices.jl: Batch and Incremental Metrics for Unsupervised Learning #3527
Comments
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @rMassimiliano, @malmaud 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:
|
Wordcount for |
|
|
👋🏼 @AP6YC this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on. 👋🏼 @rMassimiliano @malmaudBoth - you both have checklists at the top of this thread with the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines. Here is a little more context for first-time reviewers :) - The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention #3527 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package. We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if any of you require some more time. We can also use Whedon (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time. Please feel free to ping me (@adi3) if you have any questions/concerns. Thank you for all your help!! |
👋 @malmaud, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder). |
👋 @rMassimiliano, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder). |
@malmaud @rMassimiliano - seems you are yet to accept the invite to be part of the JOSS org which will allow you to proceed through your checklist. Could you please let me know if I can help you sort out any trouble you're facing? Thanks! |
Sorry, the invitation link has expired. Can you resend it? |
Hi @adi3, my invitation expired too. Sorry for the inconvenience. |
Hi @adi3 I started the review process and I will follow up with specific comments in the next days. However I still can't accept the review invitation and complete the check-list. Can you help me with that? |
@rMassimiliano @malmaud - let me try re-adding both of you as reviewer, see if that sends you a renewed link. Can you please confirm? If not, then I'll escalate the issue to the EiC |
OK, @malmaud is now a reviewer |
@whedon add @rMassimiliano as reviewer |
@AP6YC well done, and thanks for your effort! |
@rMassimiliano - thank you for your patience and thoroughness with this review! @AP6YC - we're almost there, congrats! As with your other submission, please make a tagged release of the project and archive it. Then report the version number and archive DOI here. Once I have that, I will send this for publication. |
@editorialbot check references |
|
@AP6YC also please look into and fix that invalid DOI shown above in your references |
@adi3 I fixed the DOI issue and have created an archived release; checking the DOI now: |
@editorialbot check references |
|
@adi3 Below is the information that you requested:
EDIT: I have recently identified an important bug that I would like to patch in a hotfix before submitting. A new version, DOI, and archive link is on the way. EDIT 2: Here is the updated information with the aforementioned fix:
|
@editorialbot check references |
@editorialbot set <10.5281/zenodo.7332045> as archive |
Done! Archive is now <10.5281/zenodo.7332045> |
|
@editorialbot set v0.6.3 as version |
Done! version is now v0.6.3 |
@editorialbot recommend-accept |
|
|
👋 @openjournals/dsais-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published. Check final proof 👉📄 Download article If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#3738, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command |
@editorialbot accept |
|
🐦🐦🐦 👉 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... |
@rMassimiliano, @malmaud – many thanks for your reviews here and to @adi3 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 ✨ @AP6YC – 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! The 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:
|
Submitting author: @AP6YC (Sasha Petrenko)
Repository: https://github.com/AP6YC/ClusterValidityIndices.jl
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.6.3
Editor: @adi3
Reviewers: @rMassimiliano, @malmaud
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7332045
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
@rMassimiliano & @malmaud, 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 @adi3 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 @rMassimiliano
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
Review checklist for @malmaud
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: