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]: FuseMedML: a framework for accelerated discovery in machine learning based biomedicine #4943
Comments
Hello humans, 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:
For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
|
|
Wordcount for |
|
Howdy @anupamajha1 and @suragnair! Thanks for agreeing to review this submission. The process for conducting a review is outlined above. Please run the command shown above to have @editorialbot generate your checklist, which will give a step-by-step process for conducting your review. Please check the boxes during your review to keep track, as well as make comments in this thread or open issues in the repository itself to point out issues you encounter. Keep in mind that our aim is to improve the submission to the point where it is of high enough quality to be accepted, rather than to provide a yes/no decision, and so having a conversation with the authors is encouraged rather than providing a single review post at the end of the process. Here are the review guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html Please let me know if you encounter any issues or need any help during the review process, and thanks for contributing your time to JOSS and the open source community! |
Review checklist for @suragnairConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
Review checklist for @anupamajha1Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
Hi @anupamajha1 and @suragnair, how are the reviews coming? |
Issues opened regarding |
I addressed all three issues by @anupamajha1 . please let me know if they can be closed or if there are any further comments. |
@alex-golts: Thanks for addressing my comments. Here are some suggestions before I can finish my review checklist:
|
@editorialbot generate pdf |
@anupamajha1 Thanks for these suggestions!
|
@editorialbot generate pdf |
@alex-golts: thanks for the updates! @jmschrei: I have finished the review checklist. Please let me know if anything else is needed. |
Some more suggestions for improving the paper further. Firstly, it would be helpful to have a "design philosophy" focused figure that outlines It would help to make the following improvements:
|
Thanks for the suggestions @suragnair , I have addressed them as follows:
Please let me know if you have any more questions or suggestions |
@editorialbot generate pdf |
@suragnair just an update about the 3rd bullet. we will support not having to specify the number of input channels (see BiomedSciAI/fuse-med-ml#244). so I changed the figure accordingly. removed the comment, and it now doesn't have the "1" argument that you asked about. |
@jmschrei I have fixed the invalid DOI. can you please clarify what exactly you mean by "Zenodo DOI for the paper"? I see according to the submission instructions that we're expected to deposit the repository to a service like Zenodo. did you mean that? in that case we already have it here. |
Yes, that's what I was looking for. Thanks. Is the version you'd like tagged with the submission v0.2.9? |
yes, v0.2.9 |
@editorialbot set v0.2.9 as version |
Done! version is now v0.2.9 |
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7346694 as archive |
Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7346694 |
@editorialbot recommend-accept |
|
|
👋 @openjournals/bcm-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#3887, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command |
@editorialbot set 0.2.9 as version |
Done! version is now 0.2.9 |
@alex-golts and co-authors, I am the AEiC on this track and here to help process final steps towards acceptance in JOSS. Before we can proceed, below are some some minor issues that require your attention: On the paper (You can call
Check if
On the archive:
|
@jmschrei thanks for your help as editor here. Note the archive issues I am pointing out ☝️ , in the future these are things you can check before recommending accept. But no worries we'll get it sorted out now. Thanks again for the help! 🎉 |
@editorialbot generate pdf |
@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman we fixed the typos, thanks for pointing them out. |
@editorialbot accept |
|
🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦 |
🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot 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... |
@alex-golts congratulations on this publication in JOSS! Thank you for editing this one @jmschrei ! And a special thank you to the reviewers @anupamajha1 and @suragnair !!! |
🎉🎉🎉 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:
|
Thank you all for the thorough and helpful reviews and for the editorial work! it was a great experience to go through the unique thoughtful and transparent review process of JOSS. we feel it definitely helped us improve both the paper and code. |
Submitting author: @alex-golts (Alex Golts)
Repository: https://github.com/BiomedSciAI/fuse-med-ml
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss_paper
Version: 0.2.9
Editor: @jmschrei
Reviewers: @anupamajha1, @suragnair
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7346694
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
@anupamajha1 & @suragnair, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @jmschrei 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 ✨
Checklists
📝 Checklist for @suragnair
📝 Checklist for @anupamajha1
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: