Skip to content
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]: PyGeoPressure: Geopressure Prediction in Python #992

Closed
whedon opened this issue Oct 2, 2018 · 25 comments
Closed

[REVIEW]: PyGeoPressure: Geopressure Prediction in Python #992

whedon opened this issue Oct 2, 2018 · 25 comments

Comments

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator

@whedon whedon commented Oct 2, 2018

Submitting author: @whimian (Hao Yu)
Repository: https://github.com/whimian/pyGeoPressure
Version: v0.1.8
Editor: @kthyng
Reviewer: @WalBytes, @JesperDramsch
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1452001

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/9b2dfdf4e60f236e1387bca03e3d8394"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/9b2dfdf4e60f236e1387bca03e3d8394/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/9b2dfdf4e60f236e1387bca03e3d8394/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/9b2dfdf4e60f236e1387bca03e3d8394)

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) 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

@WalBytes & @JesperDramsch, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

  1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
  2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @kthyng know.

Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks

Review checklist for @WalBytes

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
  • License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
  • Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v0.1.8)?
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@whimian) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

  • Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
  • Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
  • Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
  • Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
  • Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
  • Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
  • Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

  • Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @JesperDramsch

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
  • License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
  • Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v0.1.8)?
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@whimian) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

  • Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
  • Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
  • Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
  • Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
  • Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
  • Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
  • Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

  • Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Oct 2, 2018

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @WalBytes, it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper 🎉.

Important

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

  1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

watching

  1. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands
@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Oct 2, 2018

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Oct 2, 2018

@JesperDramsch
Copy link

@JesperDramsch JesperDramsch commented Oct 4, 2018

@whedon commands

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Oct 4, 2018

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors

# List of reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf

🚧 🚧 🚧 Experimental Whedon features 🚧 🚧 🚧

# Compile the paper from a custom git branch
@whedon generate pdf from branch custom-branch-name

@JesperDramsch
Copy link

@JesperDramsch JesperDramsch commented Oct 5, 2018

Good to go from my side @kthyng. It's a very nice package. Works as described and is well documented. Pleasure to review.

@WalBytes
Copy link

@WalBytes WalBytes commented Oct 5, 2018

Very useful package. The software functions as described. A minor revision in the second line of the paper; the author can re-word as follows: "The pore fluid pressure affects the physical properties of reservoir rocks, hence predicted pore pressure is a key input when building the geomechanical model of a reservoir. "
Good to go!

@whimian
Copy link

@whimian whimian commented Oct 6, 2018

@WalBytes I've revised the paper in the latest commit.

@JesperDramsch
Copy link

@JesperDramsch JesperDramsch commented Oct 6, 2018

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Oct 6, 2018

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Oct 6, 2018

@WalBytes
Copy link

@WalBytes WalBytes commented Oct 6, 2018

@kthyng
Copy link
Collaborator

@kthyng kthyng commented Oct 8, 2018

Excellent @JesperDramsch and @WalBytes!

Nice work @whimian! Please create an archive (on Zenodo, figshare, or other) and post the archive DOI in this issue.

@kthyng kthyng added the accepted label Oct 8, 2018
@whimian
Copy link

@whimian whimian commented Oct 9, 2018

@JesperDramsch and @WalBytes Many thanks for the review!

@whimian
Copy link

@whimian whimian commented Oct 9, 2018

@kthyng Thank you for all your assistance.

DOI for the latest release is 10.5281/zenodo.1452001

@kthyng
Copy link
Collaborator

@kthyng kthyng commented Oct 9, 2018

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.1452001 as archive

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Oct 9, 2018

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.1452001 is the archive.

@kthyng
Copy link
Collaborator

@kthyng kthyng commented Oct 9, 2018

hey @arfon we have another accepted paper here!!

@arfon
Copy link
Member

@arfon arfon commented Oct 9, 2018

@WalBytes, @JesperDramsch - many thanks for your reviews here and to @kthyng for editing this submission

@whimian - your paper is now accepted into JOSS and your DOI is https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00992 🚀 💥

@arfon arfon closed this Oct 9, 2018
@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Oct 9, 2018

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00992/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00992)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00992">
  <img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00992/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00992/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00992

This is how it will look in your documentation:

DOI

We need your help!

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:

@whimian
Copy link

@whimian whimian commented Oct 11, 2018

hey @kthyng,

There is something wrong with the author name .

My family name is "Yu", But it's "Hao" on the paper.

Could you please correct the author name?

@arfon
Copy link
Member

@arfon arfon commented Oct 11, 2018

@whimian - please change the order in your paper.md and we can recompile the paper.

@whimian
Copy link

@whimian whimian commented Oct 12, 2018

@arfon I've changed the author name in paper.md, please recompile it.

@arfon
Copy link
Member

@arfon arfon commented Oct 12, 2018

@whimian
Copy link

@whimian whimian commented Oct 14, 2018

Thanks. @arfon

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
6 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.