[REVIEW]: Aero Python: classical aerodynamics of potential flow using Python about jose-reviews HOT 68 CLOSED

Congrats to @labarba and @mesnardo on your submissions's publication in JOSE! Thanks to @weymouth and @Juanlu001 for reviewing!

from jose-reviews.

Looks good to me!

from jose-reviews.

@mesnardo looks like those DOIs were not actually added properly (used a bibdesk URL field rather than DOI field); I fixed in PR barbagroup/AeroPython#46

That should be the final edit necessary; please merge and then deposit for a DOI.

from jose-reviews.

Yay! Many thanks to @kyleniemeyer, @Juanlu001, and @weymouth for all the suggestions and modifications provided!

from jose-reviews.

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @weymouth, 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/jose-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/jose-reviews:

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

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

@whedon commands

from jose-reviews.

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

from jose-reviews.

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

from jose-reviews.

👋 @weymouth @Juanlu001 @labarba the actual review will take place here; please note the separate review checklists above

from jose-reviews.

Hi all - sorry this is taking me so long. I will try to start the review next week, or the following one at most.

from jose-reviews.

Looking forward to your review comments, @weymouth and @Juanlu001 !

from jose-reviews.

I think this is a great repository and a model for other similar projects. The only things I notice are

1. The write-up doesn't make the development "story" clear.
2. The usage of the code in the repository is well explained. Would it be helpful to explain how this ties in with the other parts of the class? For example, is this supposed to be the first time students see any of these concepts? Is it important how they use this material later on in their education?
3. I don't see the version number. (Which I only mention because of the checklist.)

from jose-reviews.

Hi @weymouth,

Thank you for your review of AeroPython! We'll work on your suggestions.

(@Juanlu001, looking forward to your review.)

from jose-reviews.

Hi @Juanlu001, just wanted to check in on the status of your review.

@mesnardo have you made changes according to @weymouth's suggestions?

from jose-reviews.

@kyleniemeyer We are waiting for the review of @Juanlu001 before making the suggested modifications.

from jose-reviews.

Hi @Juanlu001 — we're eager to get your review of the AeroPython module, to make a revision and get it to publication-ready status. Would you be able to get to this soon?

from jose-reviews.

Sorry for the super long delay. On it!

from jose-reviews.

It was quick because I already knew the course from the time it was released :)

Non-blocking comments:

• There is no version number, so I left that unchecked
• There is a statement of need in the paper but not in the repository itself - I understand that there are two checkboxes for this reason, so I left the first unchecked as well
• Perhaps this is a bit presumptuous on my side, but I would add a little footnote somewhere stating somethink like "not to be confused with another Python course for aeronautical engineers in Spanish language, with the same name but different content" (refs: https://github.com/AeroPython/Curso_AeroPython/, https://twitter.com/LorenaABarba/status/464041427169583104)

from jose-reviews.

Thank you @weymouth and @Juanlu001 for your feedback!

Modifications based on your suggestions are available in the branch jose_revision ; their is an open PR (#44) to merge these commits in the master branch.

• We added a version number to the GitHub repository; the GitHub release will be done once the revision is finished.
• We added a note at the bottom of the README to mention the other AeroPython repository.
• We modified the write-up to mention how AeroPython can be used as a full-semester course.

from jose-reviews.

Regarding the Statement of Need, the JOSE editors decided it would only be required in the paper (not the documentation), but unfortunately the checklists haven't been updated yet!

from jose-reviews.

👋 @weymouth, @Juanlu001 — I think we're ready with this revision. Would you take a final look? The editor will need your recommendation to accept.

from jose-reviews.

And to me! 👍

from jose-reviews.

Thank you, @weymouth and @Juanlu001 — we appreciate your time reviewing this submission!

@kyleniemeyer — we await your final checks for publication.

from jose-reviews.

@labarba will do those shortly

from jose-reviews.

@whedon generate pdf

from jose-reviews.

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

from jose-reviews.

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

from jose-reviews.

@labarba @mesnardo a few minor comments on the paper itself:

• Could you add full affiliation details (city, state, country)?
• I believe the final bullet in the list of lessons should start with "Assignment 3"
• I just submitted a small fix to the paper near the end; multiple references in the same square brackets should be separated by semicolons: barbagroup/AeroPython#45
• the Catrambone reference is missing the DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.127.4.355
• the Margulieux reference is missing the DOI: 10.1080/08993408.2016.1144429

Once you make those fixes, please archive the repo and provide the DOI. Almost done!

from jose-reviews.

@labarba @mesnardo a few minor comments on the paper itself:

• Could you add full affiliation details (city, state, country)?

Done in 35cf51d.

• I believe the final bullet in the list of lessons should start with "Assignment 3"

Done in 8209e1a.

• I just submitted a small fix to the paper near the end; multiple references in the same square brackets should be separated by semicolons: barbagroup/AeroPython#45

Thank you.

• the Catrambone reference is missing the DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.127.4.355
• the Margulieux reference is missing the DOI: 10.1080/08993408.2016.1144429

Added mission DOIs in 64b97fc.

Once you make those fixes, please archive the repo and provide the DOI. Almost done!

from jose-reviews.

@whedon generate pdf

from jose-reviews.

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

from jose-reviews.

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

from jose-reviews.

…and sneaked in an en-dash, I see 😁

PR merged. Thanks!

from jose-reviews.

@whedon generate pdf

from jose-reviews.

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

from jose-reviews.

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

from jose-reviews.

@whedon check references

from jose-reviews.

Attempting to check references...

from jose-reviews.

@labarba @mesnardo I'm not sure why the reference checking isn't working, but this looks good to go to me. Could you archive and provide me with the DOI?

from jose-reviews.

@whedon set v1.0 as version

from jose-reviews.

OK. v1.0 is the version.

from jose-reviews.

👋 @weymouth, @Juanlu001 — We have now released v1.0 and updated the version number here, so you can tick off that item in your checklist. Many thanks!

from jose-reviews.

@whedon set 10.6084/m9.figshare.1004727.v4 as archive

from jose-reviews.

OK. 10.6084/m9.figshare.1004727.v4 is the archive.

from jose-reviews.

@whedon accept

from jose-reviews.

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

from jose-reviews.

PDF failed to compile for issue #45 with the following error:

/app/vendor/ruby-2.4.4/lib/ruby/2.4.0/find.rb:43:in block in find': No such file or directory - tmp/45 (Errno::ENOENT) from /app/vendor/ruby-2.4.4/lib/ruby/2.4.0/find.rb:43:in collect!'
from /app/vendor/ruby-2.4.4/lib/ruby/2.4.0/find.rb:43:in find' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-a1723d160bb6/lib/whedon/processor.rb:57:in find_paper_paths'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-a1723d160bb6/bin/whedon:73:in compile' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/command.rb:27:in run'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/invocation.rb:126:in invoke_command' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor.rb:387:in dispatch'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/base.rb:466:in start' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-a1723d160bb6/bin/whedon:116:in <top (required)>'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bin/whedon:23:in load' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bin/whedon:23:in

from jose-reviews.

@whedon generate pdf

from jose-reviews.

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

from jose-reviews.

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

from jose-reviews.

@whedon accept

from jose-reviews.

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

from jose-reviews.

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/jose-papers#33

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/jose-papers#33, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

from jose-reviews.

@whedon accept deposit=true

from jose-reviews.

I'm sorry @kyleniemeyer, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editor-in-chiefs are allowed to do.

from jose-reviews.

Yikes!

from jose-reviews.

@labarba hmm, I think I am supposed to have that power...

from jose-reviews.

On JOSS, yes. But here, we never set up an EiC team.

from jose-reviews.

@labarba Ah. Well, we can figure that out offline. In the meantime, JOSE EiC, I'd like to recommend this submission be accepted 😄

from jose-reviews.

I was just fiddling to create a new team (which I did), but can't find how to give it Admin powers. Gah.

from jose-reviews.

I'll just go ahead and publish this.

from jose-reviews.

@whedon accept deposit=true

from jose-reviews.

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

from jose-reviews.

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSE! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 openjournals/jose-papers#34
1. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00045
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

from jose-reviews.

🎉🎉🎉 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](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00045/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00045)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00045">
  <img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00045/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00045/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00045

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

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:

• Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: http://jose.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.salsalabs.org/donate-to-jose

from jose-reviews.

https://twitter.com/JOSE_TheOJ/status/1129425838406082560

from jose-reviews.

OK DOIs

- 10.1080/08993408.2016.1144429 is OK
- 10.1037/0096-3445.127.4.355 is OK
- 10.1037/edu0000018 is OK
- 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.005 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-84010-4_1 is OK
- 10.21105/jose.00021 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

from jose-reviews.

OK DOIs

- 10.1080/08993408.2016.1144429 is OK
- 10.1037/0096-3445.127.4.355 is OK
- 10.1037/edu0000018 is OK
- 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.005 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-84010-4_1 is OK
- 10.21105/jose.00021 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

from jose-reviews.

OK DOIs

- 10.1080/08993408.2016.1144429 is OK
- 10.1037/0096-3445.127.4.355 is OK
- 10.1037/edu0000018 is OK
- 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.005 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-84010-4_1 is OK
- 10.21105/jose.00021 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

from jose-reviews.