Skip to content
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

[PRE REVIEW]: New developments in PySDM and PySDM-examples v2: collisional breakup, immersion freezing, dry aerosol composition initialisation, and adaptive time-stepping #4412

Closed
editorialbot opened this issue May 21, 2022 · 67 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator

editorialbot commented May 21, 2022

Submitting author: @edejong-caltech (Emily de Jong)
Repository: https://github.com/atmos-cloud-sim-uj/PySDM
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v2.8
Editor: @dhhagan
Reviewers: @douglowe, @emmasimp
Managing EiC: Kevin M. Moerman

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5110170dd97fe1ebf08227881f76bda9"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5110170dd97fe1ebf08227881f76bda9/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5110170dd97fe1ebf08227881f76bda9/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5110170dd97fe1ebf08227881f76bda9)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @edejong-caltech. Currently, there isn't an JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@edejong-caltech if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands
@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Hello human, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.30 s (1282.3 files/s, 78734.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                         366           2932           2331          16330
Markdown                         3            185              0           1157
YAML                            15             51             16            376
TeX                              1             39              0            282
TOML                             1              0              0              2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           386           3207           2347          18147
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Wordcount for paper.md is 1913

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1002/qj.441 is OK
- 10.1145/2833157.2833162 is OK
- 10.5194/npg-24-535-2017 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-8-1677-2015 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0469(1967)024<0688:CDGBC>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.5194/acp-18-7313-2018 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-10-1817-2017 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00755 is OK
- 10.1029/2018MS001285 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-13-5119-2020 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-13-1335-2020 is OK
- 10.1002/2017MS000930 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-11-3623-2018 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-77964-1_2 is OK
- 10.1002/qj.1913 is OK
- 10.1029/2002JD002673 is OK
- 10.1007/s10546-020-00595-w is OK
- 10.1002/fld.1071 is OK
- 10.1029/2019MS001689 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02807 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-019-12982-0 is OK
- 10.1175/JAS3980 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03219 is OK
- 10.1002/essoar.10510248.1 is OK
- 10.5194/acp-16-2083-2016 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-13-4107-2020 is OK
- 10.1029/1999JD901161 is OK
- 10.1038/nature22806 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aad4889 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-9-1455-2016 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0450(1978)017<0320:ATDPIC>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1016/0307-904X(84)90088-X is OK
- 10.1017/CBO9781139165389 is OK
- 10.1039/c3fd00035d is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- 10.1175/1520-0469(1949)0063C0134:TGOCDI3E2.0.CO;2 is INVALID

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Copy link
Member

@edejong-caltech can you check that potentially invalid DOI ☝️ ? You can call @editorialbot check references to check them again.

@edejong-caltech
Copy link

@editorialbot check references

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1002/qj.441 is OK
- 10.1145/2833157.2833162 is OK
- 10.5194/npg-24-535-2017 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-8-1677-2015 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0469(1967)024<0688:CDGBC>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.5194/acp-18-7313-2018 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-10-1817-2017 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00755 is OK
- 10.1029/2018MS001285 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-13-5119-2020 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-13-1335-2020 is OK
- 10.1002/2017MS000930 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-11-3623-2018 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-77964-1_2 is OK
- 10.1002/qj.1913 is OK
- 10.1029/2002JD002673 is OK
- 10.1007/s10546-020-00595-w is OK
- 10.1002/fld.1071 is OK
- 10.1029/2019MS001689 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02807 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-019-12982-0 is OK
- 10.1175/JAS3980 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03219 is OK
- 10.1002/essoar.10510248.1 is OK
- 10.5194/acp-16-2083-2016 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-13-4107-2020 is OK
- 10.1029/1999JD901161 is OK
- 10.1038/nature22806 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aad4889 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-9-1455-2016 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0450(1978)017<0320:ATDPIC>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1016/0307-904X(84)90088-X is OK
- 10.1017/CBO9781139165389 is OK
- 10.1039/c3fd00035d is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Copy link
Member

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented May 30, 2022

Note to handling editor, this is a second paper, after their first JOSS publication https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03219 (previous review #3219 (comment) and previous ~LOC 7548)

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Copy link
Member

@dhhagan you handled the v1 of this package for the first paper. Would you be able to help edit this one? I see that you are however handling many other submissions. If you are able to handle this one, do you want me to assign you now or would you prefer if I label this as waitlisted until you are ready?

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Copy link
Member

@editorialbot invite @dhhagan as editor

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Copy link
Member

@dhhagan I invited you just now but let me know if you prefer if I waitlist this until you have finished handling some other submissions.

@dhhagan
Copy link

dhhagan commented Jun 1, 2022

Hey @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman - yea, I can handle it, though I forgot what's needed to be done to accept as an editor..?

@danielskatz
Copy link

You can tell editorialbot via @editorialbot assign me as editor - thanks for doing this!!

@slayoo
Copy link

slayoo commented Jun 1, 2022

Thank you, @dhhagan, @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman & @danielskatz!

@danielskatz
Copy link

I'll go ahead and do it this time (just to reduce the list I have of unassigned papers :) ) thanks!

@danielskatz
Copy link

@editorialbot assign @dhhagan as editor

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Assigned! @dhhagan is now the editor

@slayoo
Copy link

slayoo commented Jun 22, 2022

@dhhagan, @danielskatz, is there any input that we need to provide at this time as authors to proceed? Thanks, Sylwester

@dhhagan
Copy link

dhhagan commented Jun 29, 2022

Hey @slayoo - I am working on finding reviewers and will post here asap.

@dhhagan
Copy link

dhhagan commented Jun 29, 2022

👋 @darothen @josephhardinee You were the two reviewers for the original paper - do you have time/interest in reviewing the follow-up?

@slayoo
Copy link

slayoo commented Jul 20, 2022

if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @)

@dhhagan, let me then suggest some more names: zzheng93, mdpetters, maul1609, smturbev, emmasimp

@slayoo
Copy link

slayoo commented Jul 28, 2022

@dhhagan, @danielskatz, let us kindly ask for the status of this pre-review, thanks.

@dhhagan
Copy link

dhhagan commented Aug 10, 2022

Hey @slayoo so sorry about the delay - got lost in my GitHub notifications. I will get to this within the next hour.

@claresinger
Copy link

@editorialbot add @emmasimp as reviewer

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I'm sorry @claresinger, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do.

@claresinger
Copy link

@editorialbot invite @emmasimp as reviewer

@dhhagan Please try this again, the command didn't work. You need to add not invite.

@dhhagan
Copy link

dhhagan commented Nov 25, 2022

@editorialbot add @claresinger as reviewer

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@claresinger added to the reviewers list!

@dhhagan
Copy link

dhhagan commented Nov 25, 2022

@editorialbot add @douglowe as reviewer

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@douglowe added to the reviewers list!

@dhhagan
Copy link

dhhagan commented Nov 25, 2022

@editorialbot start review

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

OK, I've started the review over in #4968.

@slayoo
Copy link

slayoo commented Nov 25, 2022

@dhhagan

@editorialbot add @claresinger as reviewer

Clare is an author here, not a reviewer.
The intended command likely was: @editorialbot add @emmasimp as reviewer

@claresinger
Copy link

@dhhagan Please remove me as a reviewer. I am an author on this paper.

@claresinger
Copy link

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman @danielskatz @dhhagan
Please remove me as a reviewer of this paper. I am one of the authors. I think you probably meant to add @emmasimp instead.

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Copy link
Member

@editorialbot remove @claresinger as reviewer

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@claresinger removed from the reviewers list!

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Copy link
Member

@editorialbot add @emmasimp as reviewer

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@emmasimp added to the reviewers list!

@claresinger
Copy link

Thank you @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman 🙏

@slayoo
Copy link

slayoo commented Feb 7, 2023

@editorialbot generate pdf

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

@slayoo
Copy link

slayoo commented Feb 13, 2023

@editorialbot generate pdf

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

@slayoo
Copy link

slayoo commented Feb 13, 2023

@editorialbot generate pdf

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

@slayoo
Copy link

slayoo commented Feb 13, 2023

@editorialbot generate pdf

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

@douglowe
Copy link

Does the article proof need regenerating in the review thread rather than here? #4968

@slayoo
Copy link

slayoo commented Feb 13, 2023

indeed! thanks @douglowe

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

9 participants