[PRE REVIEW]: TransitionInTimeSeries.jl: A performant, extensible and reliable software for reproducible detection and prediction of transitions in timeseries

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @JanJereczek (Jan Swierczek-Jereczek)
Repository: https://github.com/JuliaDynamics/TransitionsInTimeseries.jl
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @lrnv
Reviewers: @felixcremer, @sgeorge91
Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ab051d21d28bdf948541fa15dd077dc7"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ab051d21d28bdf948541fa15dd077dc7/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ab051d21d28bdf948541fa15dd077dc7/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ab051d21d28bdf948541fa15dd077dc7)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @JanJereczek. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@JanJereczek if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

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]

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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.07 s (866.3 files/s, 60941.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                           38            525            502           2049
Markdown                        11            214              0            635
TeX                              2             14              0            257
YAML                             7              9              8            156
TOML                             5              4              0             69
Python                           1             11              4             45
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            64            777            514           3211
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.quascirev.2009.06.013 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0041010 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.2106140118 is OK
- 10.1038/nature08227 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05038 is OK
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3036370 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04414 is OK
- 10.1016/j.joa.2015.11.003 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-023-39810-w is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-023-44046-9 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1743

[editorialbot]

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

[arfon]

@JanJereczek - thanks for your submission to JOSS. We're currently managing a large backlog of submissions and the editor most appropriate for your area is already rather busy.

For now, we will need to waitlist this paper and process it as the queue reduces. Thanks for your patience!

[JanJereczek]

Hi @arfon, no big deal!

[JanJereczek]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[arfon]

@editorialbot invite @martinfleis as editor

👋 @martinfleis – I recognize this is 'left field' for you, but any chance you'd be willing to take this on?

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[martinfleis]

@arfon I know very little about the topic and near nothing about Julia. No one closer to this is available at the moment?

[lrnv]

@arfon, @martinfleis if you agree i'll take it.

[martinfleis]

@lrnv very happy to leave this one to you.

[lrnv]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @lrnv is now the editor

[lrnv]

@JanJereczek Hello! I'll be your editor for this paper, nice to meet you !

Would you be able to recommend a few potential reviewers? You may e.g. take a look at Joss's reviewer list there, or propose anyone else that would be fitted (e.g. at least who know julia and/or time series).

[JanJereczek]

Hi @lrnv,

Nice to meet you too! Based on the list of reviewers, I would recommend @sgeorge91 and @felixcremer.

Cheers

[lrnv]

👋 @sgeorge91 and @felixcremer, would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[felixcremer]

I'd be willing to review this, but I am not sure, how much time I am able to put into it in March.
What is the expected time line for a review?

[lrnv]

@felixcremer The expected time line is about 6 to 8 weeks but can be extended on demand. We aim at publication after 3 to 4 months. Anyway, if you need more time in the middle, you can always ask nicely and usually the editor (that is, me) will give you more time ;)

[felixcremer]

This time line should be manageable for me, so you can assign me as a reviewer.

[sgeorge91]

Hi @lrnv . Happy to assist with this. You can assign me as a reviewer as well.

[lrnv]

@editorialbot add @felixcremer as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@felixcremer added to the reviewers list!

[lrnv]

@editorialbot add @sgeorge91 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@sgeorge91 added to the reviewers list!

[lrnv]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6464.