[REVIEW]: GCIdentifier.jl: A Julia package for identifying molecular fragments from SMILES #6453

editorialbot · 2024-03-08T10:22:56Z

Submitting author: @pw0908 (Pierre Walker)
Repository: https://github.com/ClapeyronThermo/GCIdentifier.jl
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main
Version: v0.3.1
Editor: @zhubonan
Reviewers: @Arrondissement5etDemi, @mjohnson541, @moyner
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10914015

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ae6e572b246c445802d20aee7cb17f88"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ae6e572b246c445802d20aee7cb17f88/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ae6e572b246c445802d20aee7cb17f88/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ae6e572b246c445802d20aee7cb17f88)

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

@Arrondissement5etDemi & @mjohnson541 & @moyner, 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:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @zhubonan 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 @Arrondissement5etDemi

📝 Checklist for @moyner

📝 Checklist for @Arrondissement5etDemi

📝 Checklist for @moyner

📝 Checklist for @mjohnson541

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

editorialbot · 2024-03-08T10:22:59Z

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:

@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 · 2024-03-08T10:23:12Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1021/ie00067a018 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.jcim.1c01103 is OK
- 10.1063/1.4851455 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.iecr.2c00326 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-0-444-63428-3.50017-5 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2020.106769 is OK
- 10.1080/00986448708960487 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.jced.0c00723 is OK
- 10.1021/ie502203w is OK
- 10.1101/2023.08.29.555352 is OK
- 10.1021/ci990427t is OK
- 10.1002/aic.690490714 is OK
- 10.1021/ci034184n is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10478701 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-03-08T10:23:15Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.03 s (1072.9 files/s, 208945.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVG                              1              0              0           4868
Julia                           19            154            142            923
Markdown                         7             60              0            284
TeX                              1             14              0            210
YAML                             5              0              5            117
TOML                             2              7              0             32
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            35            235            147           6434
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    46	pw0908
    29	longemen3000
     6	Andrés Riedemann

editorialbot · 2024-03-08T10:23:18Z

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 688

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot · 2024-03-08T10:23:20Z

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

editorialbot · 2024-03-08T10:24:21Z

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

moyner · 2024-03-08T12:07:17Z

Review checklist for @moyner

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/ClapeyronThermo/GCIdentifier.jl?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@pw0908) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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 functionality 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

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

zhubonan · 2024-03-11T16:08:04Z

Hi @Arrondissement5etDemi, @mjohnson541, @moyner Thanks again for agreeing to review this submission 👍. @Arrondissement5etDemi, @mjohnson541 please generate your checklists and get started!

It would be great to have the review done in two weeks time as this package is relative small. Please let me know if you have any problem or require a bit time. Cheers.

Arrondissement5etDemi · 2024-03-11T16:09:44Z

## Review checklist for @Arrondissement5etDemi ### Conflict of interest - [ ] I confirm that I have read the [JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy](https://github.com/openjournals/joss/blob/master/COI.md) and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review. ### Code of Conduct - [ ] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the [JOSS code of conduct](https://joss.theoj.org/about#code_of_conduct). ### General checks - [ ] **Repository:** Is the source code for this software available at the [https://github.com/ClapeyronThermo/GCIdentifier.jl](https://github.com/ClapeyronThermo/GCIdentifier.jl)? - [ ] **License:** Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an [OSI approved](https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical) software license? - [ ] **Contribution and authorship:** Has the submitting author (@pw0908) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete? - [ ] **Substantial scholarly effort:** Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the [JOSS guidelines](https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#substantial-scholarly-effort) - [ ] **Data sharing:** If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item. - [ ] **Reproducibility:** If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item. - [ ] **Human and animal research:** If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with [JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy](https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/policies.html?highlight=animal#joss-policies)? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item. ### 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 functionality 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 - [ ] **Summary:** Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided? - [ ] **A statement of need:** Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work? - [ ] **State of the field:** Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages? - [ ] **Quality of writing:** Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)? - [ ] **References:** Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper [citation syntax](https://pandoc.org/MANUAL.html#extension-citations)?

Arrondissement5etDemi · 2024-03-13T01:28:38Z

Review checklist for @Arrondissement5etDemi

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/ClapeyronThermo/GCIdentifier.jl?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@pw0908) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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 functionality 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

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

Arrondissement5etDemi · 2024-03-13T01:29:06Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-03-13T01:30:49Z

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

pw0908 · 2024-03-13T01:39:16Z

No clue what happened there but it looks like the pdf compiled just fine, the bot just didn't manage to link it to this issue: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/openjournals/joss-papers/joss.06453/joss.06453/10.21105.joss.06453.pdf

Arrondissement5etDemi · 2024-03-13T01:43:10Z

Hi Pierre, This works, thanks a lot! Best regards, Haina

…

________________________________ From: Pierre Walker ***@***.***> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 18:39 To: openjournals/joss-reviews ***@***.***> Cc: Haina Wang ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [openjournals/joss-reviews] [REVIEW]: GCIdentifier.jl: A Julia package for identifying molecular fragments from SMILES (Issue #6453) No clue what happened there but it looks like the pdf compiled just fine, the bot just didn't manage to link it to this issue: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/openjournals/joss-papers/joss.06453/joss.06453/10.21105.joss.06453.pdf — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#6453 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKIGQVQWDPBNCIEY6KBTXDLYX6U5VAVCNFSM6AAAAABEMSGRJGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSOJTGAZTQMJRHE>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.

pw0908 · 2024-03-13T02:02:47Z

No worries Haina!

mjohnson541 · 2024-03-20T02:51:56Z

Review checklist for @mjohnson541

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/ClapeyronThermo/GCIdentifier.jl?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@pw0908) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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 functionality 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

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

mjohnson541 · 2024-03-20T03:46:42Z

I was unable to install on a clean Julia 1.6.7 install from conda-forge. It looks like an issue with Cairo:

Incompatible library version: libpangocairo-1.0.0.dylib requires version 11603.0.0 or later, but libcairo.2.dylib provides version 2.0.0

mjohnson541 · 2024-03-20T04:40:58Z

As far as the documentation, on Home it claims "GCIdentifier.jl: An extensible Julia package for the modelling of fluids using thermodynamic equations of state." Which this software does not seem to do. I suspect this was accidentally copied from Clapeyron.jl. This should have a description of the software and what it can be used to do.

pw0908 · 2024-03-20T05:22:03Z

Hi Matt!

For the home page: that is a very silly mistake! We did copy our initital documentation template from Clapeyron, but it seems we forgot to change the opening lines. We have now fixed this.

As for the installation error, are you certain of the Julia version? I've tried installing Julia 1.6.7 from conda-forge, but there is only 1.6.6, the next version up is 1.7.0. It's also strange that the tests fail on 1.6 as our automated tests include 1.6 and they've been passing. These only currently run on ubuntu so perhaps this is an issue with the OS?

mjohnson541 · 2024-03-20T06:03:11Z

Sorry, that was a mistake, I installed Julia v1.6.5 I am on osx though, which might be relevant.

mjohnson541 · 2024-03-20T06:06:10Z

I can try on ubuntu later.

pw0908 · 2024-03-20T06:08:22Z

We have now added macos and windows to our tests to see if this might be the issue. (MacOS just passed its tests)

I also made a mistake: 1.6.7 is the long-term support version of 1.6. But this was the version being tested on ubuntu either way.

Update: Windows also passed.

pw0908 · 2024-03-20T16:55:27Z

@mjohnson541 Just tried installing GCIdentifier on a clean version of Julia 1.6.5 in Ubuntu without issue. It might just be a MacOS issue (are you using an M-series mac?).

pw0908 · 2024-03-25T19:43:53Z

@moyner @mjohnson541 @Arrondissement5etDemi Is there anything we can help with? @longemen3000 and I would be happy to assist with any issues you might be encountering during your review!

zhubonan · 2024-04-04T07:47:45Z

@editorialbot set v0.3.1 as version

editorialbot · 2024-04-04T07:47:48Z

Done! version is now v0.3.1

zhubonan · 2024-04-04T07:48:01Z

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.10914015 as archive

editorialbot · 2024-04-04T07:48:03Z

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.10914015

zhubonan · 2024-04-04T07:50:14Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-04-04T07:50:16Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-04-04T07:50:32Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1021/ie00067a018 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.jcim.1c01103 is OK
- 10.1063/1.4851455 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.iecr.2c00326 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-0-444-63428-3.50017-5 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2020.106769 is OK
- 10.1080/00986448708960487 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.jced.0c00723 is OK
- 10.1021/ie502203w is OK
- 10.1101/2023.08.29.555352 is OK
- 10.1021/ci990427t is OK
- 10.1002/aic.690490714 is OK
- 10.1021/ci034184n is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10478701 is OK
- 10.1186/s13321-019-0382-3 is OK
- 10.1002/cmdc.200800178 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00596 is OK
- 10.1063/1.1744539 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.iecr.9b04289 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.iecr.1c00169 is OK
- 10.1016/j.fluid.2022.113504 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-04-04T07:51:41Z

👋 @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#5206, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-04-04T12:21:39Z

as AEiC for JOSS I will now help to process this submission for acceptance in JOSS. I have checked this review, your repository, the archive link, and the paper. Most seems in order and I only have below point that requires your attention:

It looks like conductivites should be conductivities please check

pw0908 · 2024-04-04T20:34:51Z

Yes! Thank you for catching this. I have now fixed the typo.

pw0908 · 2024-04-04T20:35:06Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-04-04T20:36:23Z

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

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-04-05T07:13:13Z

One more thing @pw0908 can you check that you always use spaces before the brackets of a reference? See below I highlight some correct and incorrect locations:

pw0908 · 2024-04-05T07:14:22Z

I'll deal with that now!

pw0908 · 2024-04-05T07:17:57Z

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Should be fixed now

pw0908 · 2024-04-05T07:18:05Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-04-05T07:19:10Z

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

pw0908 · 2024-04-05T07:39:15Z

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman I'll be up for another hour or so if there's any more changes you'd like me to make!

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-04-05T09:21:05Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2024-04-05T09:21:07Z

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-04-05T09:21:40Z

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman I'll be up for another hour or so if there's any more changes you'd like me to make!

Nope, it looks like you'll wake up to an accepted paper :)

editorialbot · 2024-04-05T09:27:36Z

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

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Walker
  given-names: Pierre J.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8628-6561"
- family-names: Riedemann
  given-names: Andrés
- family-names: Wang
  given-names: Zhen-Gang
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3361-6114"
contact:
- family-names: Walker
  given-names: Pierre J.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8628-6561"
- family-names: Riedemann
  given-names: Andrés
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10914015
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Walker
    given-names: Pierre J.
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8628-6561"
  - family-names: Riedemann
    given-names: Andrés
  - family-names: Wang
    given-names: Zhen-Gang
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3361-6114"
  date-published: 2024-04-05
  doi: 10.21105/joss.06453
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 96
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 6453
  title: "GCIdentifier.jl: A Julia package for identifying molecular
    fragments from SMILES"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06453"
  volume: 9
title: "GCIdentifier.jl: A Julia package for identifying molecular
  fragments from SMILES"

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.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

editorialbot · 2024-04-05T09:27:39Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2024-04-05T09:27:40Z

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.06453 joss-papers#5213
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06453
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-04-05T09:45:08Z

@pw0908 congratulations on this publication

I'd like to thank @zhubonan for editing and especially would especially like to thank the reviewers: @Arrondissement5etDemi, @mjohnson541, @moyner

editorialbot · 2024-04-05T09:45:09Z

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

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

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06453/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06453)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06453">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06453/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06453/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06453

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:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

editorialbot added Julia review TeX Track: 2 (BCM) Biomedical Engineering, Biosciences, Chemistry, and Materials labels Mar 8, 2024

editorialbot assigned zhubonan Mar 8, 2024

editorialbot mentioned this issue Mar 8, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: GCIdentifier.jl: A Julia package for identifying molecular fragments from SMILES #6421

Closed

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Apr 4, 2024

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Apr 5, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman closed this as completed Apr 5, 2024

[REVIEW]: GCIdentifier.jl: A Julia package for identifying molecular fragments from SMILES #6453

[REVIEW]: GCIdentifier.jl: A Julia package for identifying molecular fragments from SMILES #6453

Comments

editorialbot commented Mar 8, 2024 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Mar 8, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 8, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 8, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 8, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 8, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 8, 2024

moyner commented Mar 8, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @moyner

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

zhubonan commented Mar 11, 2024

Arrondissement5etDemi commented Mar 11, 2024 via email • edited by editorialbot Loading

Arrondissement5etDemi commented Mar 13, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @Arrondissement5etDemi

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Arrondissement5etDemi commented Mar 13, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 13, 2024

pw0908 commented Mar 13, 2024

Arrondissement5etDemi commented Mar 13, 2024 via email

pw0908 commented Mar 13, 2024

mjohnson541 commented Mar 20, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @mjohnson541

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

mjohnson541 commented Mar 20, 2024

mjohnson541 commented Mar 20, 2024

pw0908 commented Mar 20, 2024 • edited Loading

mjohnson541 commented Mar 20, 2024

mjohnson541 commented Mar 20, 2024

pw0908 commented Mar 20, 2024 • edited Loading

pw0908 commented Mar 20, 2024

pw0908 commented Mar 25, 2024

zhubonan commented Apr 4, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 4, 2024

zhubonan commented Apr 4, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 4, 2024

zhubonan commented Apr 4, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 4, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 4, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 4, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Apr 4, 2024 • edited Loading

pw0908 commented Apr 4, 2024

pw0908 commented Apr 4, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 4, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Apr 5, 2024 • edited Loading

pw0908 commented Apr 5, 2024

pw0908 commented Apr 5, 2024

pw0908 commented Apr 5, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 5, 2024

pw0908 commented Apr 5, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Apr 5, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 5, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Apr 5, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 5, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 5, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 5, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Apr 5, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 5, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

moyner commented Mar 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Arrondissement5etDemi commented Mar 11, 2024 via email •

edited by editorialbot

Loading

Arrondissement5etDemi commented Mar 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mjohnson541 commented Mar 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

pw0908 commented Mar 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

pw0908 commented Mar 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Apr 4, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Apr 5, 2024 •

edited

Loading