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]: MOTrainer: Distributed Measurement Operator Trainer for Data Assimilation Applications #6591
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: |
👋🏼 @rogerkuou @abhishektiwari @KwickSilver this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on. As you might know, as a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering @editorialbot generate my checklist 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 openjournals/joss-reviews#REVIEW_NUMBER so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package. 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 (@srmnitc ) if you have any questions/concerns, thanks again for the submission, and for thr reviews |
Hi Sarath,
Apologies for my delayed response; I haven't been able to start reviewing
the journal yet. I plan to begin tomorrow and aim to complete it by the end
of this month. Does this timeline work for you?
Thanks,
Shantanu
…On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 at 04:47, Sarath Menon ***@***.***> wrote:
👋🏼 @rogerkuou <https://github.com/rogerkuou> @abhishektiwari
<https://github.com/abhishektiwari> @KwickSilver
<https://github.com/KwickSilver> this is the review thread for the paper.
All of our communications will happen here from now on.
As you might know, as a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist
for your review by entering
@editorialbot <https://github.com/editorialbot> generate my checklist
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 openjournals/joss-reviews#REVIEW_NUMBER so that a link is created
to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also
feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it
is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them
instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.
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 ***@***.*** <https://github.com/srmnitc> ) if
you have any questions/concerns, thanks again for the submission, and for
thr reviews
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#6591 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABCUHHJ5AU25RZTRQPVGMKDY4J7VBAVCNFSM6AAAAABF4RFJNSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDANBSGUZTQOBYGM>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
@KwickSilver that is fine, thanks for the update! |
@abhishektiwari hi! just a short reminder about the review, do you need anything from our side to get started? |
Review checklist for @abhishektiwariConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
@rogerkuou Initial feedback,
Once you have fixed these, let us know in comments here so I can verify functional claims. |
Thx @abhishektiwari for the feedback! Sorry for the late reply, just came back from a holiday. I will work on them in the coming days, and will let you know when it's done. |
@KwickSilver hi! just a short reminder from my side for the review here. |
@srmnitc Apologies for the delay. Due to competing priorities, I was unable to allocate sufficient time for the review as promptly as I had intended. However, I will commence the review process without further delay. |
Review checklist for @KwickSilverConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
Thanks for your quick reply! |
Submitting author: @rogerkuou (Ou Ku)
Repository: https://github.com/VegeWaterDynamics/motrainer
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.1.3
Editor: @srmnitc
Reviewers: @abhishektiwari, @KwickSilver
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
@abhishektiwari & @KwickSilver, 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 @srmnitc 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 @abhishektiwari
📝 Checklist for @KwickSilver
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: