-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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]: Learning Machine Learning with Lorenz-96 #241
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 🔴 Failed to discover a |
License info: ✅ License found: |
Review checklist for @Micky774Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Documentation
Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)
JOSE paper
|
Hey @Micky774 @AnonymousFool 👋 Wanted to check in on the status of your reviews, see if you needed anything or if there are any roadblocks I can help troubleshoot. Thanks! |
Oh my god, well this fell off my radar somehow. That was irresponsible of me. Mea culpa. I've got too much scheduled today to work on it, so I'll start work in earnest tomorrow. |
Review checklist for @AnonymousFoolConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Documentation
Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)
JOSE paper
|
Sorry for the delay, and thank you for your patience. I will be performing the first part of my review today, and hope to complete a full round by tomorrow evening, circumstances permitting. |
Once again, sorry for the delay @dhruvbalwada. The good news is that the vast majority of the non-pedagogical components are already in a fantastic state, and there is no core content missing. If anything, most of these suggestions are to round out the existing content and offer some more concrete and explicit communication which future learners can benefit from. Below is my first-pass of the non-pedagogical sections. If you have any questions about the feedback, please feel free to let me know! In particular, if there is something you'd like a more detailed discussion and dissection of, it would probably be best to open an issue in your repository corresponding to the specific piece of feedback that needs clarification. We can continue a more detailed discussion there and simply link back to it in this thread for brevity/clarity. Non-pedagogical components reviewGeneral checks
Documentation
JOSE paper
|
Alright, I've done a run through of all the required material for the review. I agree with Meekail's feedback thus far, and I found one additional issue with respect to the non-pedagogical requirements that I've documented here. With respect to the pedagogical content, I think that the structure, ordering, and pacing of ideas throughout the notebooks is impeccable. I think though that there are a lot of small edits I could make to various sentences and formulae to improve their precision and clarity. I think the most productive and easiest way to deliver and discuss the feedback would be if I made a new branch of the repository in which I commit the edit ideas as changes to the notebooks. Then I can open a pull request, and we can use github's comment and suggestion infrastructure to organize discussion of the feedback. If you, on review, found the feedback valuable, then you can just merge the changes in. I've also noticed a lot of small typos and grammatical errors throughout the notebooks, none of which affected my ability to understand the ideas the notebooks communicate. But as part of my editing feedback, I could include spelling and grammatical fixes. Or I could just ignore them if you prefer. Thoughts @dhruvbalwada? |
@AnonymousFool - If you have the time to make the edits in a new branch, it would be great and very much appreciated. |
@AnonymousFool let us know how the review is progressing. If you face any further technical difficulties, reach out to me here / open an issue and I'll be addressing it |
Hi @AnonymousFool and @Micky774, thanks so much for your help so far! I still see some items in your checklists that haven't been addressed. Are you waiting for feedback, or would you be able to continue your reviews? |
@magsol I'll be updating my review this upcoming week, but afaik still waiting on changes in the repository to address the current given feedback as well. |
Hi @dhruvbalwada, the reviewers are indicating that they're waiting on changes on your end. Can you provide an update on how that's going? |
Hi @dhruvbalwada , @IamShubhamGupto: I saw you working on the feedback from @AnonymousFool, but I'm not clear on whether you have addressed the feedback from @Micky774 yet. I'd like to see if we can wrap this up soon; are you waiting on anything from the reviewers? |
Hi @magsol @Micky774 @AnonymousFool - we have made all the appropriate changes to the repo and the paper according to your suggestions. Please let us know what else to address and how to proceed. |
@magsol @Micky774 thank you for reviewing our work so far and waiting for the new changes. I believe as of today all the remaining requested changes have been published except for releasing version Let me know if the current version of the repository is ready and the release will be created subsequently |
Alright, yeah, I think the latest round of edits has covered the whole checklist without problems. I hope at some point to get around to those edit suggestions I want to do, but I seem to have bogged myself down in other problems, and I see no reason to prevent publishing what I already believe is a well-functioning educational resource. |
Your could list the copyright owners as well as the year, and then the license. Like: (c) Copyright 2024 Dhruv Balwada, Ryan Abernathey, Shantanu Acharya, et al. — License: MIT for code, CC-BY for text and figures. |
Doubly licensed Jupyter notebooks are the norm nowadays, but are not handled gracefully by hosting services. You could leave the CC-BY license in Zenodo (I think it admits only one, but haven't checked in a while.) In the GitHub repo, you could add a License notice in the README. |
Once merged, we will have to update the version one more time on GitHub if im not wrong |
We don't require a new version tag for minor tweaks like this, but up to you. |
@labarba - I believe we have made all the changes you requested. |
@labarba - just a gentle nudge about this issue. I believe we have passed all the requirements now for a few weeks. |
@labarba - apologies for pinging again. Could you please take the next steps to help us get through. |
Hi @dhruvbalwada — thank you for your patience! It doesn't look like this comment was addressed:
Can you update the title of the Zenodo archive so it matches the paper? Please also double check the author list: it looks like Johanna Goldman is listed on Zenodo but not the paper. The author list should match. |
@labarba - Now the latest version should have all these things fixed. |
If I follow the archive DOI https://zenodo.org/records/13357587 I don't see the changes applied — are we on different archives? |
Could you try now? |
At the very top of this thread, you see that the archive for this paper has been set as:
Can you confirm then that we should change the archive DOI to 10.5281/zenodo.13921550, Dec 25, 2024 ? |
Yes, please let us change the archive if that helps. I am not sure and don't remember how the DOI link got set at the top. But please let us use the link that works for this submission process to be completed. |
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.13921550 as archive |
Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.13921550 |
@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. |
🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦 |
🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSE! 🚨🚨🚨 Here's what you must now do:
Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team... |
Congratulations @dhruvbalwada – your JOSE paper is published! 🚀 And thank you to our Editor: @magsol Reviewers: @Micky774, @AnonymousFool – ya'll make this possible! 🙏 |
🎉🎉🎉 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 Education 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:
|
Thank you @labarba and @magsol the reviewers: @Micky774 @AnonymousFool ! |
Submitting author: @dhruvbalwada (Dhruv Balwada)
Repository: https://github.com/m2lines/L96_demo
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.0.3
Editor: @magsol
Reviewers: @Micky774, @AnonymousFool
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.13921550
Paper kind: learning module
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
@Micky774 & @AnonymousFool, 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://openjournals.readthedocs.io/en/jose/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @magsol 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 @Micky774
📝 Checklist for @AnonymousFool
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: