-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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]: Simulation of fracture and damage with Peridynamics.jl #165
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 source files, type:
|
|
Software report:
Commit count by author:
|
Paper file info: 📄 Wordcount for 🔴 Failed to discover a |
License info: ✅ License found: |
Review checklist for @ranochaConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Paper format
Content
|
I have created the issues kaipartmann/Peridynamics.jl#167 and kaipartmann/Peridynamics.jl#168 for this review. I think the paper can be accepted after major revisions. |
Thanks @ranocha for providinga review of the article draft. A minor remark wrt the "statement of need"; we are currently revising the guidelines for that and do no longer require an explicit section about it. We leave it up to the authors to state and motivate where appropriate the need for their work. |
Hello together, |
@editorialbot generate pdf |
@HaoZeke - when you find some time, and ideally in the coming two weeks, please generate your reviewer checklist and provide some feedback regarding the manuscript submission such that we do not stall the revision process 🙏 |
kaipartmann/Peridynamics.jl#167 is close to be closed. When that's done, a new release has been made, and the paper branch has been updated, I am fine accepting the paper. Thanks to @kaipartmann and collaborators for a nice contribution to the open-source ecosystem 👍 |
@HaoZeke please give any update, whether you want to (i) continue the revision process (and in this case ideally do it asap), or (ii) drop out. Both are fine, but please respond such that we could take further actions accordingly. Thank you! |
I closed the issue and included the current release in the paper branch. Thanks to @ranocha, for your help and invaluable feedback! |
@editorialbot set v0.3.3 as version |
I'm sorry @kaipartmann, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do. |
@luraess, I've updated the software version. Please use the editorial bot command to update it. It seems only you have the permission to do so. Thank you! |
@editorialbot set v0.3.3 as version |
Done! version is now v0.3.3 |
@HaoZeke given that I did not hear anything back from you, I will remove you as reviewer for this submission. |
@editorialbot commands |
Hello @luraess, here are the things you can ask me to do:
|
@editorialbot remove @HaoZeke from reviewers |
@HaoZeke removed from the reviewers list! |
@kaipartmann would you be able to provide me a short list of potential reviewers given that I had to drop one. Given the detailed review provided by @ranocha a second review would most likely be swiftly completed. |
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.13757260 as archive |
Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.13757260 |
@editorialbot add @ZenanH as reviewer |
@ZenanH added to the reviewers list! |
Review checklist for @ZenanHConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Paper format
Content
|
@editorialbot recommend-accept |
|
|
@editorialbot generate pdf |
👋 @JuliaCon/jcon-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 JuliaCon/proceedings-papers#100, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command |
@kaipartmann from my side all looks good regarding accepting your paper. Please download the final proof and let mw know if all looks good to you. Please take care to check whether typesetting has no issues. After that, we could publish the paper. Thanks! |
Hello @luraess, |
Hey, can you please try updating the |
@editorialbot generate pdf |
@editorialbot check references |
|
@luraess |
I see. Thanks. If you expect the DOI to become available in the coming days, could we wait and then publish this one. If not, let mw know about an alternative option and we could follow it as well. |
Submitting author: @kaipartmann (Kai Partmann)
Repository: https:/kaipartmann/Peridynamics.jl
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper_juliacon_2023
Version: v0.3.3
Editor: @luraess
Reviewers: @ranocha, @ZenanH
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.13757260
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
@ranocha & @HaoZeke, 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 @luraess 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 @ranocha
📝 Checklist for @ZenanH
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: