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]: A Python module to combine p values arising from discrete tests #6096
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 |
Review checklist for @mdhaberConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
@editorialbot generate pdf |
@editorialbot generate pdf |
Review checklist for @steppiConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
because I agree this is good practice. I also asked if lines could be wrapped in the docstrings to make them easier to read in a terminal. Right now there lines up to over 400 characters wide.
Software paper
|
Hi, @Wrzlprmft could you please update us on your status in addressing issues raised by @mdhaber? Hi, @steppi could you please update us on the progress of your review? I see there are some checkboxies unchecked. Is it because there are still in progress or there is some issue with them? |
In my understanding, there is nothing for me to address at the moment. I addressed @mdhaber’s last comments here (and the commits referenced therein). Since my last reply was mostly asserting his understandings, I didn’t expect a response and assumed no further clarification or changes were needed. |
Yes, my comments were addressed, and I only planned to do a more detailed check of the reference section. |
Sorry @vissarion, since agreeing to review this I ended up being busier than expected but things are settling down. I will be able to complete my review within two weeks. The unchecked boxes are for things that are still in progress. |
I completed my checklist. References look good except for "metap" probably isn't intended to be capitalized in the rendered document. |
Fixed. While I disagree with lowercasing proper names, this is reproducing the lack of capitalisation of the cited source. |
@mdhaber do you recommend to accept this paper? |
Hi @steppi, do you have any news from this review? |
Sorry for the delay. I’ll get it done this week. |
Yes |
I've completed my review and recommend this paper for publication. I would like to see the updates I suggested made to the documentation but don't think this is a blocker. |
So it does. Thanks to the reviewers (@mdhaber and @steppi) for their diligent criticism and constructive comments.
|
Hopefully done. I added the paper title as an alternative title. Please tell me if it should be the main title. |
@Wrzlprmft please change the main title of zenodo to "A Python module to combine 𝑝 values arising from1 |
Done (except for the stray “1” which I presume to be an error). |
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.8338798 as archive |
Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.8338798 |
@editorialbot set 1.2.2 as version |
Done! version is now 1.2.2 |
@editorialbot check references |
|
@editorialbot generate pdf |
@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#5038, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command |
@editorialbot accept |
|
Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository. If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file. You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here: CITATION.cff
If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation. |
🐘🐘🐘 👉 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... |
🎉 Everything looks fine to me. Thanks to everybody involved. However, I cannot close this issue (or find the editorial technical team to contact about this) as instructed. It seems like @vissarion or @arfon has to do this. |
@steppi, @mdhaber – many thanks for your reviews here and to @vissarion 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 ✨ @Wrzlprmft – 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: @Wrzlprmft (Gerrit Ansmann)
Repository: https://github.com/BPSB/combine-p-values-discrete
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 1.2.2
Editor: @vissarion
Reviewers: @steppi, @mdhaber
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8338798
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
@steppi & @mdhaber, 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 @vissarion 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 @mdhaber
📝 Checklist for @steppi
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: