-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 36
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]: PyXAB - A Python Library for X-Armed Bandit and Online Blackbox Optimization #6507
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:
|
Software report:
Commit count by author:
|
Paper file info: 📄 Wordcount for ✅ The paper includes a |
License info: ✅ License found: |
|
👋🏼 @WilliamLwj @Otomisin, @KBodolai this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on. As a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering
as the top of a new comment in this thread. These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines. The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if any of you require some more time. We can also use EditorialBot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time. Please feel free to ping me (@drvinceknight) if you have any questions/concerns. |
Review checklist for @KBodolaiConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
Review checklist for @OtomisinConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
|
@drvinceknight I think I am done with the review, The paper does not have a section explicitly titled "Statement of need," but the content relevant to this purpose is dispersed throughout the introduction and other sections 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. Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed? Please let me know if anything else is needed from my side. |
👋 @drvinceknight - could you please check in on this one and keep things going? Thanks! |
👋 @drvinceknight - Just raising this one to the top of your notifications...
|
Thanks for your review @Otomisin. @WilliamLwj could you let me know how revisions are going? |
Hi @drvinceknight, to be honest, we are a bit unsure what we should do next because we have't heard back for quite long, and this is our first time submitting to JOSS. We thought we should wait for the reviews from @KBodolai to be completed before we start prepare the revisions. Also, could you let us know how to upload the revisions? In the meantime, we do not see a lot of changes requested by the reviewers. The two (potential) improvements we identify are:
Please kindly let us know whether the above changes are needed, and what our next steps should be. Thank you very much. |
@KBodolai would you be able to follow up on your review?
If you make revisions to the paper and commit them to the paper repository that would be good. Once you have done that you can ping the reviewers here to let them know.
That looks right to me from @Otomisin's review. |
Hi @drvinceknight, thanks for getting back to us so quickly. Regarding the two areas to improve,
We have committed all of our changes to the paper and you can find the newest version in our Github actions. @editorialbot generate pdf |
Submitting author: @WilliamLwj (Wenjie Li)
Repository: https://github.com/WilliamLwj/PyXAB
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper
Version: v0.3.0
Editor: @drvinceknight
Reviewers: @Otomisin, @KBodolai
Archive: Pending
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
@Otomisin & @KBodolai, 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 @drvinceknight 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 @KBodolai
📝 Checklist for @Otomisin
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: