-
-
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]: pySymmPol: Symmetric Polynomials #6724
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: |
Review checklist for @AnnikaSteinConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
Hi @AnnikaStein, thanks. I will work on these things in the next few days. Talk soon. |
Review checklist for @eliotwrobsonConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
General CommentsI haven't looked at the paper in detail yet, but I will start by opening a few issues on the repo for some things I noticed in the code. I'm going to be using this book to get some background on symmetric polynomials, (there is also this other book). It may be a good idea to cite these as newer, accessible introductions to this topic. |
Hi @eliotwrobson, I'll address the last issue here as it's pertinent to concerns raised by @AnnikaStein. It's worth noting that both @phibeck and @AnnikaStein are fellow physicists. Regarding your comment:
Regarding your comment:
|
@editorialbot generate pdf |
@thraraujo your changes look good! The main item from the review checklist was the discussion of the state of other packages, and that section is clear. I'll go ahead and close the issue and check that item off of my list 👍🏽 |
Hi @eliotwrobson and @AnnikaStein, thanks for all the comments. Hi @phibeck, the only missing point appears to be the Summary in @AnnikaStein's checklist. @eliotwrobson's checklist agrees that the summary already provides a high-level description understandable even to non-specialists. In my opinion, key terms like Manipulation, Polynomials, and Symmetric are very precise, so I don't want to give an additional high-level description of the types of manipulations or symmetric polynomials the package deals with. Since this is a minor point, I'll leave the decision to you. |
Sorry @thraraujo for not being clear on what I meant with this point - I was a bit hesitant to check it as the summary contains abbreviations, "AdS/CFT" which, in my opinion, a "diverse, non-specialist audience" would likely not understand without further reading. For someone with a physics background, one may always infer that field theories are meant when you see the letters FT next to each other :), but if one looks at it from a different perspective, it's a non-trivial set of abbreviations. |
Hi @AnnikaStein, actually, it is a fair take, and I'd missed it. Now it's fixed. Thanks |
Dear @phibeck , it appears that the reviewers have completed their evaluations; and I am awaiting your decision or further instructions. Could you please provide an update on the next steps in the process? Best |
Hi @thraraujo thanks for checking in. I'm travelling this week but will look into it tomorrow. I believe we are ready to proceed, but let me get back to you tomorrow. |
Thank you very much for an incredibly speedy and thorough review, @AnnikaStein and @eliotwrobson! 🚀 And thank you @thraraujo for addressing all comments timely and adequately. 🙌 This is by far the fastest review I have seen so far, thank you all! 🥇 @thraraujo the reviewers have recommended the submission for publication. There are a few more steps before we finalize the publication. At this point could you please:
I can then move forward with recommending acceptance of the submission. |
@editorialbot generate pdf |
Hi @phibeck , thanks
Kudos to @AnnikaStein and @eliotwrobson! They were indeed very fast, and I sincerely believe the package is much better now.
I have already done this, version v0.1.2
Archived here: https://zenodo.org/records/11214737
Done.
|
Hi @phibeck, any news?!? |
@editorialbot set v0.1.2 as version |
Done! version is now v0.1.2 |
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.11214737 as archive |
Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.11214737 |
@thraraujo thanks for the reminder. I'm away for a workshop since last week so response is a bit slow. Here are a few more comments/suggestions for the manuscript. Please have a look when you have a moment.
|
Hi @phibeck, it's done. Thanks. |
@editorialbot check references |
|
@editorialbot generate pdf |
👋 @thraraujo looks good, thank you. I'll hand this over to the Track Editor-in-chief! |
@editorialbot recommend-accept |
|
|
👋 @openjournals/pe-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#5409, 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... |
Congratulations @thraraujo on your article's publication in JOSS! Please consider signing up as a reviewer if you haven't already. Many thanks to @eliotwrobson and @AnnikaStein for reviewing this, and @phibeck for editing. |
🎉🎉🎉 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: @thraraujo (Thiago Rocha Araujo)
Repository: https://github.com/thraraujo/pysymmpol
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper
Version: v0.1.2
Editor: @phibeck
Reviewers: @eliotwrobson, @AnnikaStein
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.11214737
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
@eliotwrobson & @AnnikaStein, 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 @phibeck 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 @AnnikaStein
📝 Checklist for @eliotwrobson
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: