[REVIEW]: Emacs-reveal: A software bundle to create OER presentations about jose-reviews HOT 73 CLOSED

HI @labarba, I'm sorry about that, I am satisfied with this (and have updated that item, accordingly!).

from jose-reviews.

@katyhuff Many thanks for taking care of the second review on such short notice!

Concerning licensing: Did you see the file LICENSE or only the folder LICENSES? The challenge is that included software and resources come with different license terms. Thus, as explained in file LICENSE I decided to go with the REUSE approach: Files should either have a header indicating which free and open license among LICENSES applies or a separate file ending in ".license" (such as paper.md.license). I hope that I did not forget any such indicator.

I'll check out Zenodo next.

from jose-reviews.

Thank you @jrosen48

@labarba I believe this is ready to accept!

from jose-reviews.

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

from jose-reviews.

@labarba Wow, that was fast. Many thanks for checking the citations. I rewrote some parts to avoid nested parentheses and parentheses following each other, which does indeed look much better.

from jose-reviews.

Congratulations, @lechten, your JOSE paper is now published! 🚀

Sincere thanks to our editor: @katyhuff, and the reviewers: @jrosen48, @markgalassi — we greatly appreciate your contribution to JOSE 🙏

from jose-reviews.

@jrosen48, @katyhuff, @labarba, @markgalassi Many thanks to all of you, I learned a lot during this process!

I would be happy to help in the future and signed up as reviewer.

from jose-reviews.

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @jrosen48, 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.

👋 @jrosen48, @markgalassi — Folks, this is where the review happens. You both have a review checklist at the top, to guide you through the process by checking off items to review. The version item is something we can check off in the end, as we will ask the authors to do a release after any revisions. Statement of need should be a section in the paper (the checklist has it also in the Documentation, but that's optional).

Feel free to ask any questions here, and @katyhuff will help you out. You can also post questions to the author, or open issues in the submission repository.

Please tick off your Conflict of Interest and Code of Conduct items ASAP, so we all see the review has started. Thanks!

from jose-reviews.

Dear @katyhuff , this is my first time so I'm feeling awkward and it took me a while to get the flow going. I have checked off the items I am comfortable checking off. I see no submit button after checking them, so I'm guessing you record them in real time (but please tell me if I'm wrong). I have several suggestions for the paper. How does that back-and-forth go?

from jose-reviews.

@markgalassi — You can post comments right here with revision requests to the author.

from jose-reviews.

@jrosen48 : Sorry I've been out of touch here. What is the status of your review?
@markgalassi : Thanks for getting started. How is your review progress going? A JOSE review involves checking submissions against a checklist of essential features and details in the submitted work. You can leave your brief review comments here in the comments. We also encourage reviewers to file issues against the submitted repository’s issue tracker. When you have completed your review, please leave a comment in the review issue saying so.

from jose-reviews.

Hi all, I'm so sorry for the delay. I've moved through a few review items but have a few more to go. I will try to complete this by the end of this week (Friday, 6/14). I'm sorry again. Thanks!

from jose-reviews.

@whedon remind @jrosen48 in 4 days

from jose-reviews.

Reminder set for @jrosen48 in 4 days

from jose-reviews.

As they didn't appear here automatically (did I not create the link correctly? is this due to GitLab/GitHub differences?), here are issues I filed:

Regarding the statement of need in the paper: https://gitlab.com/oer/emacs-reveal/issues/9
Regarding tests: https://gitlab.com/oer/emacs-reveal/issues/10
Regarding examples: https://gitlab.com/oer/emacs-reveal/issues/11
Regarding installation: https://gitlab.com/oer/emacs-reveal/issues/12

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 generate pdf

from jose-reviews.

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

from jose-reviews.

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

from jose-reviews.

@whedon generate pdf

from jose-reviews.

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

from jose-reviews.

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

from jose-reviews.

Thanks, @jrosen48 for your feedback! I responded to your issues, and the new article proof reflects changes to the paper.

from jose-reviews.

Thanks @lechten - just responded to each of the comments (and have updated my review checklist accordingly!).

from jose-reviews.

👋 @jrosen48, please update us on how your review is going.

from jose-reviews.

That was your automated reminder that I set, @jrosen48. I see you could be getting close to recommending publication. What's your status, @markgalassi?

from jose-reviews.

hi folks — I just sent an email to @markgalassi to ask for a status update. Stay tuned.

from jose-reviews.

Thanks.

from jose-reviews.

@labarba, @markgalassi Any news on the status of this review? Anything that I could do?

from jose-reviews.

The reviewer has gone MIA and is not responsive here or on email. @katyhuff: could you take executive action to complete the review without him?

from jose-reviews.

Yes. I'll handle this sometime in the next day.

from jose-reviews.

@whedon remind @katyhuff in 1 day

from jose-reviews.

Reminder set for @katyhuff in 1 day

from jose-reviews.

In the absense of our second reviewer, I have conducted a review myself. Though I'm not an emacs user, I am an avid reveal user. Thank you for this contribution @lechten . I have left some minor review comments below, but will be conducting final checks (with my handling editor hat on) in the coming moments.

Review checklist for @katyhuff

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?

I was confused by this at first. The repository is very small, with very few substantive files. However, it points to the more substantial associated repository in the same organization: https://gitlab.com/oer/emacs-reveal-howto. While the kernel of the functionality is in the main repository, much of the substance is in the howto repo.

• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?

Yes, though it would be helpful if it were made clear what portions of the repository were covered by which licenses (as there are 3.... ). @lechten : am I missing something with regard to which content is covered by which licenses?

• Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v3.0.2)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@lechten) made substantial 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? (and documentation is sufficient?)
• 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.)
  (no performance claims. )

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software 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.)

I am not an emacs user (I use vim), but I followed the logic nonetheless. While I didn't fully deploy the system, I think I have it installed now. I can't test it very well, as I quickly become lost in emacs keybindings. The howto repo was essential to understanding this process and comprehending the contribution.

• Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software?

• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?

• Tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
  (see issues raised by @jrosen48 and closed by @lechten .)

• 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 the need for this software and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

from jose-reviews.

@whedon check references

from jose-reviews.

Attempting to check references...

from jose-reviews.

OK DOIs

- 10.1080/02680510903482132 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2011.41 is OK
- 10.21240/mpaed/34/2019.03.02.X is OK
- 10.11647/obp.0019.10 is OK
- 10.14742/ajet.2258 is OK
- 10.1145/1409360.1409377 is OK
- 10.3991/ijet.v8i1.2539 is OK
- 10.1002/tl.469 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4842-0076-6 is OK
- 10.21105/jose.00034 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

from jose-reviews.

Thank you @jrosen48 for your review -- we couldn't do this without you.
I appreciate your start on this review @markgalassi -- I'm sorry you weren't able to finish it, but I do hope that you will let us know ASAP if you have any blocking concerns about this work being accepted.

Thank you @lechten for a strong submission and for engaging actively in the review process! I have looked over the paper, double-checked all the DOI links, and have conducted a high-level review of the code itself. Everything looks ship-shape to me, though I will note one minor comment I have made above regarding the many license files being a bit confusing. I believe I can check the box, but if you have the will, I believe the repository would be improved by more clarity regarding the interpretation of the licenses folder.

At this point, please double-check the paper yourself, review any lingering details in your code/readme/etc., and then make an archive of the reviewed software in Zenodo/figshare/other service. Please be sure that the DOI metadata (title, authors, etc.) matches this JOSS submission. Once that's complete, please update this thread with the DOI of the archive, and I'll move forward with accepting the submission. Until then, now is your moment for final touchups!

from jose-reviews.

@whedon generate pdf

from jose-reviews.

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

from jose-reviews.

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

from jose-reviews.

I uploaded the current version: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3357438

from jose-reviews.

from jose-reviews.

@markgalassi I'm truly sorry to read this. I sincerely hope that you get well soon!

from jose-reviews.

I'm also very sorry to hear it and am very grateful for your early effort on the review.

from jose-reviews.

@whedon set v3.0.3 as version

from jose-reviews.

OK. v3.0.3 is the version.

from jose-reviews.

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3357438 as archive

from jose-reviews.

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3357438 is the archive.

from jose-reviews.

@whedon generate pdf

from jose-reviews.

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

from jose-reviews.

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

from jose-reviews.

@jrosen48 — you still have an unchecked item in the checklist (Functionality documentation). Can you see if you're satisfied with that, and issue your recommendation here?

from jose-reviews.

@lechten — you have included the software repository in the list of references. JOSE papers have the repository (and archive) added as part of the margin decorators on the first page, so we ask that you don't add it in the text or references.

from jose-reviews.

In the section on Functionality, I find a couple of in-text citations, meaning, the citation is a part of speech in a sentence. E.g. "see Smith (2009)," or "as described in Smith (2009)." In those cases, please use the correct Citation syntax to suppress the brackets.

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 generate pdf

from jose-reviews.

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

from jose-reviews.

@whedon accept

from jose-reviews.

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

from jose-reviews.

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/jose-papers#38

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/jose-papers#38, 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.

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#39
1. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00050
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.00050/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00050)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00050">
  <img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00050/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00050/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00050

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.

Tweet announcing this paper:

https://twitter.com/JOSE_TheOJ/status/1157928348024225792

from jose-reviews.