-
-
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]: DUGseis: A Python Package for Real-Time and Post-Processing of Picoseismicity #6768
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: |
|
👋 @mrosskopf and @ThomasLecocq - This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on. Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above. Both reviewers have checklists at the top of this thread (in that first comment) with the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also 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 #6768 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 the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks but please make a start well ahead of this as JOSS reviews are by their nature iterative and any early feedback you may be able to provide to the author will be very helpful in meeting this schedule. |
👋 @kwinkunks - Would you be willing to review this submission to 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 |
👋 @meghanrjones - Would you be willing to review this submission to 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 |
👋 @jlarsen-usgs - I know this one is a little bit outside of your interest area, but would you consider reviewing it? Thanks! |
@crvernon Sorry to come back to this so late. I can take over the second review. |
@editorialbot add @trichter as reviewer Excellent! Thanks @trichter! |
@trichter added to the reviewers list! |
Review checklist for @trichterConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
I have a conflict of interest with the last author of this submission. We are both long-time contributors to the obspy package. I request this COI to be waived. |
@trichter - as long as you and the author have not collaborated on this current submission, I believe it is OK to waive this COI since the "obspy" package has so many contributors. |
Review checklist for @ThomasLecocqConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
👋 @mrosskopf, @ThomasLecocq, @trichter - I'm glad to see this review rolling along. Could @ThomasLecocq and @trichter provide a short update to how things are going here in this thread? Thanks! |
👋 @mrosskopf, @ThomasLecocq, @trichter - Just following up on the above. |
@crvernon Sorry for the delay, I had to find a long enough time slot for the review. I've finished my review. The submission looks good to me. I have two minor issues:
My other comments have been addressed in the issues. The new points in the open issue are minor. |
👋 @ThomasLecocq - Just checking in to see how things are going. Can you give a time estimate to when you may be able to complete your review? Thanks! |
Thank you @trichter for your review. |
👋 @jessepisel - Would you be willing to review this submission to 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 |
@editorialbot add @erexer as reviewer |
@erexer added to the reviewers list! |
Hi @crvernon I would be happy to review. What does the timeline look like for reviews at this time? |
@editorialbot add @jessepisel as reviewer Great @jessepisel! How about sometime within the next two weeks. You can generate your review checklist using:
Thanks so much! |
@jessepisel added to the reviewers list! |
Submitting author: @mrosskopf (Martina Rosskopf)
Repository: https://github.com/swiss-seismological-service/DUGseis
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.3
Editor: @crvernon
Reviewers: @ThomasLecocq, @trichter, @erexer, @jessepisel
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
@ThomasLecocq, 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 @crvernon 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 @trichter
📝 Checklist for @ThomasLecocq
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: