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]: DBSP_DRP: A Python package for automated spectroscopic data reduction of DBSP data #3612
Comments
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @crhea93, @arjunsavel 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 |
|
|
@crhea93, @arjunsavel – This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on. Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above. Both reviewers have checklists at the top of this thread (in that first comment) 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. 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 We aim for the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks but please make a start well ahead of this as JOSS reviews are by their nature iterative and any early feedback you may be able to provide to the author will be very helpful in meeting this schedule. |
This is a very interesting-looking package! While the majority of the documentation is present, I think it would benefit from 3 sections that are currently missing:
I am particularly impressed with the post-install documentation! This is very handy indeed. |
I’ve completed my review! Overall: I've opened a few issues in the repository. Many of the items I've mentioned are related to grammar and consistency.
I also wanted to touch base about the authorship list — I only see the first author in the commit history. The various installation routes worked well for me. However, I couldn't fully verify the code's functionality — when I tried to reduce the sample_data, the fact that the data didn’t have RA / Dec ended ups throwing an Astropy units type error. Is there different data I should use to verify that this works, or am I missing something? In summary, this package looks great to me. I’ll sign off for acceptance pending the resolution of the above issues! |
@crhea93, @arjunsavel – thanks for your feedback here ⚡! @finagle29 – please let us know when you've had a chance to respond to the reviewer feedback. |
👋 @arjunsavel, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder). |
👋 @crhea93, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder). |
👋 @finagle29 – just checking in here to see how you're getting on responding to the reviewer feedback? |
Thanks for checking in! I've been slowly working through the review issues that @arjunsavel opened. I've been a bit stuck on how to write contributing guidelines. Regarding the authorship list, Christoffer Fremling and Mansi Kasliwal were both substantial non-code contributors. The sample_data folder is slightly misnamed, it's intentionally broken FITS files that the unit tests rely on. I have put sample data to verify functionality here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1HcbmItr50IN2D4GF37ycoZHa1Cco__6m?usp=sharing I have two quick clarifying question for @crhea93. By functionality API, do you mean something like this automatically generated API documentation https://dbsp-drp.readthedocs.io/en/develop/dbsp_drp.html ? Also, could you elaborate on what Automated Testing documentation you would like to see? |
And a question for @arfon : I have changed institutional affiliations since completing the vast majority of my work on DBSP_DRP, should I use my previous affiliation on the paper? If so, is there some way I should note my current affiliation? |
Hi @finagle29 — thank you for addressing my issues, things are looking great! I've closed all the completed issues. With regard to community guidelines, you could use the emcee package's Also, thanks for pointing me to some sample data — I'll be able to check that out in the next few days. |
You can include multiple affiliations if you wish? Perhaps listing your current and previous ones? The example paper shows how to do this. |
Hi @finagle29 — sorry for the delay! I've been able to run the sample_data that you provided for the blue arm, and everything looks great there! However, I'm not able to do so for the red arm; in this case, I run into a consistent issue with each file (no RA, Dec --> astropy throws a TypeError when trying to create SkyCoords). |
No worries, @arjunsavel ! I ran into that bug myself, and have just pushed a fix to the |
@editorialbot recommend-accept |
|
👋 @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published. Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#3001 If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#3001, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command |
@editorialbot accept |
|
🚨🚨🚨 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... |
@crhea93, @arjunsavel – many thanks for your reviews here! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you ✨ @finagle29 – 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:
|
I just noticed a small issue: in the published version of the paper, there isn't a footnote after my name noting my present address/affiliation. When I use whedon to preview the paper on the |
I wonder if we're stripping this? As per the docs, the preferred way would be to write this as such:
@tarleb do you have any thoughts/suggestions here? |
I'm looking into it right now: we changed handling of author notes such that corresponding authors and equal contributors are handled better. That might have broken all other author notes. I think I can fix this. |
The note should now be rendered in the PDF in the same way it did before. I'm now checking how the note can be included in JATS output. |
Thanks @tarleb !! |
I believe @arfon might be able to do that. |
@arfon could you rerender the published PDF? |
@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... |
This looks to be fixed now @finagle29? |
Yes, everything looks great, thank you so much for your help! |
@editorialbot reaccept |
|
🌈 Paper updated! New PDF and metadata files 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#3576 |
@finagle29 – can you check this new PDF looks good? https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/blob/13c81ea7f6403838a32bbfbc9ae0835754b5e7d9/joss.03612/10.21105.joss.03612.pdf |
lgtm! |
Submitting author: @finagle29 (Milan Roberson)
Repository: https://github.com/finagle29/DBSP_DRP/
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @arfon
Reviewers: @crhea93, @arjunsavel
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.6241526
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
@crhea93 & @arjunsavel, 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 @arfon 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 @crhea93
✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
Review checklist for @arjunsavel
✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: