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]: coalitions: Coalition probabilities in multi-party democracies #606

Closed
whedon opened this Issue Mar 6, 2018 · 18 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@whedon
Collaborator

whedon commented Mar 6, 2018

Submitting author: @adibender (Andreas Bender)
Repository: https://github.com/adibender/coalitions
Version: v0.6.0
Editor: @leeper
Reviewer: @fsolt
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1195667

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/6aa04e39492359baa5b988d6bf1d47d8"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/6aa04e39492359baa5b988d6bf1d47d8/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/6aa04e39492359baa5b988d6bf1d47d8/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/6aa04e39492359baa5b988d6bf1d47d8)

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) 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

@fsolt, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

  1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
  2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @leeper know.

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
  • License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
  • Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v0.6.0)?
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@adibender) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

  • Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
  • Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
  • Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
  • Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
  • Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
  • Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
  • Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

  • Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

whedon commented Mar 6, 2018

Hello human, I'm @whedon. I'm here to help you with some common editorial tasks. @fsolt it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper 🎉.

⭐️ 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:

  1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

watching

  1. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

notifications

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

@whedon commands
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

whedon commented Mar 6, 2018

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

whedon commented Mar 6, 2018

@fsolt

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

fsolt commented Mar 9, 2018

Looks good to go, @leeper!

@fsolt fsolt closed this Mar 9, 2018

@arfon arfon reopened this Mar 9, 2018

@fsolt

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

fsolt commented Mar 9, 2018

Sorry, @arfon ! Rookie mistake...

@leeper

This comment has been minimized.

Member

leeper commented Mar 9, 2018

@fsolt Thanks for your super fast review!! And props for submitting a PR to make fixes.

@adibender

This comment has been minimized.

adibender commented Mar 9, 2018

The whole review process was indeed super fast! Thank you all and especially @fsolt for that PR. Allready merged!

@fsolt

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

fsolt commented Mar 9, 2018

You're welcome. It was fun! Good work!

@leeper

This comment has been minimized.

Member

leeper commented Mar 10, 2018

This looks good to me. @arfon over to you!

@arfon arfon added the accepted label Mar 10, 2018

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Member

arfon commented Mar 10, 2018

@adibender - At this point could you make an archive of the reviewed software in Zenodo/figshare/other service and update this thread with the DOI of the archive? I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

@leeper

This comment has been minimized.

Member

leeper commented Mar 10, 2018

@arfon oops, sorry - forgot that.

@adibender

This comment has been minimized.

adibender commented Mar 11, 2018

@arfon I archived on zenodo

  • 10.5281/zenodo.1172594: This DOI represents all versions, and will always resolve to the latest one
  • 10.5281/zenodo.1195667: This is the DOI of the current version

Not sure which one you usually use.

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Member

arfon commented Mar 11, 2018

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.1195667 as archive

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

whedon commented Mar 11, 2018

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.1195667 is the archive.

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Member

arfon commented Mar 11, 2018

@fsolt - many thanks for your review here and to @leeper for editing this one

@adibender - your paper is now accepted into JOSS and your DOI is https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00606 ⚡️🚀 💥

@arfon arfon closed this Mar 11, 2018

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

whedon commented Mar 11, 2018

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippet:

[![DOI](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00606/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00606)

This is how it will look in your documentation:

DOI

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:

@adibender

This comment has been minimized.

adibender commented Mar 11, 2018

@arfon Review process is really quick and uncomplicated 👍 Many thanks!
Already signed up as reviewer!

@leeper

This comment has been minimized.

Member

leeper commented Mar 11, 2018

@adibender Thanks for being willing to review in the future! We'll definitely call on you. Congrats on your acceptance!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment