-
-
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]: Giga Connectome: a BIDS-app for time series and functional connectome extraction #7061
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: |
👋🏼 @htwangtw, @jdkent, @shnizzedy 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
at the top of a new comment in this thread. There are additional guidelines in the message at the start of this issue. Please feel free to ping me (@mstimberg) if you have any questions/concerns. |
Review checklist for @shnizzedyConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
Review checklist for @jdkentConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
@mstimberg I was unaware of this work prior to being invited to review. I think I am able to make an impartial assessment of this work and request that these conflicts be waived: Conflicts of interest
ReferencesFootnotes
|
@shnizzedy Many thanks for the detailed information. From my side, I'd say that the last point is not an issue (it regularly happens that reviewers are authors of software in the same field that get cited by the reviewed manuscript). I am also not worried about all of you being part of the Brainhack community – reviewers and authors being part of the same community is difficult to avoid if we want to have competent reviewers 😊 CC @sappelhoff who is both a JOSS editor and a BIDS maintainer, so he might have valuable insights to add. |
I agree ✅ I believe the COI for @shnizzedy can be waived. |
@editorialbot add @emullier as reviewer Thanks for joining us! |
@emullier added to the reviewers list! |
Review checklist for @emullierConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
Submitting author: @htwangtw (Hao-Ting Wang)
Repository: https://github.com/bids-apps/giga_connectome
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 0.5.0
Editor: @mstimberg
Reviewers: @jdkent, @shnizzedy, @emullier
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
@jdkent & @shnizzedy, 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 @mstimberg 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 @jdkent
📝 Checklist for @shnizzedy
📝 Checklist for @emullier
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: