[PRE REVIEW]: epiworldR: Fast Agent-Based Epi Models about joss-reviews HOT 51 CLOSED

The last error is related to SVG figures. We have a table with SVG badges. @derekmeyer37, can you replace the SVG badges with png figures? If not, let's just write down the number of total dependencies (the second number of the badges.)

from joss-reviews.

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

from joss-reviews.

@Abinashbunty 👋 Thanks for volunteering ...I will assign you as a reviewer tonight.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot add @Abinashbunty as reviewer

from joss-reviews.

Thank you @stmcg for suggesting me! @spholmes I'd be happy to review this paper.

from joss-reviews.

Hello human, 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:

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

Couldn't check the bibtex because branch name is incorrect: paper

from joss-reviews.

Couldn't check the bibtex because branch name is incorrect: paper

from joss-reviews.

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

from joss-reviews.

@derekmeyer37 There is no paper branch which can be used to get the paper.md. Can you create paper branch?

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot check repository

from joss-reviews.

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.09 s (563.1 files/s, 341938.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C/C++ Header                     2           4131           2432          11121
Bourne Shell                     2            458            472           3596
C++                              8            498            145           1980
R                               22            653           1702           1779
HTML                             1            120              1            680
Markdown                         5            127              0            514
Rmd                              4            167            356            168
m4                               1             31              0            145
YAML                             3             26             11             95
JSON                             2              0              0             83
TeX                              1              5              0             48
make                             1             10              0             23
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            52           6226           5119          20232
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

from joss-reviews.

Wordcount for paper.md is 736

from joss-reviews.

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

from joss-reviews.

@derekmeyer37 thanks for this submission. I am the AEiC for this track and here to help with the initial steps. Can you confirm that the above software report featuring the lines of code counts (LOC) for the different languages is reasonably accurate? Can you clarify what encapsulates the main functionality achieved with this submission in terms of those? E.g. would it be accurate to say the core work here is centered around the ~2000 lines of R, and that the ~2k C++, and >10k C/C++ header some epiworld functionality (for which this work appears a wrapper)? Or is the C/C++ content contained herein also your personal work?

Quick note on the paper, could you add Salt Lake City, UT, United States of America, to your affiliation (assuming I got that right)? Thanks.

from joss-reviews.

Yes, the LOC are accurate. The 11,000 lines of code is the wrapper for epiworld which we are developing as well. I also went ahead and added "Salt Lake City, UT, United States of America" to the affiliation.

from joss-reviews.

@derekmeyer37 Thanks for that additional information. I will now proceed to find a handling editor. Note though that many are currently somewhat oversubscribed or on holiday. Hence I'll need to "waitlist" this submission for the moment and we'll have to be patient until a handling editor becomes available.

from joss-reviews.

@spholmes this looks like it may be your cup of tea 🍵, however you are already handling several other submissions. Would you be able to let me know if you could in principle help edit this one? If so, could you let me know if you'd rather leave this waitlisted, or if we could assign this to you already. Thanks!

from joss-reviews.

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman I am happy to handle this although I am having a lot of trouble with unresponsive reviewers right now, vacations and conferences are monopolizing travel and availability. But we'll try...

from joss-reviews.

Thanks @spholmes I'll assign you now so. I fully understand regarding the (Northern hemisphere ;) ) summer time difficulties. I am seeing extra papers as folks squeeze out a paper before going on holiday, and also many editors and reviewers are unavailable. I think it is okay to accept the longer processing times at the moment and we need not stress about it too much. There is not a lot we can do about it.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot assign @spholmes as editor

from joss-reviews.

Assigned! @spholmes is now the editor

from joss-reviews.

@derekmeyer37 I have assigned an editor and formally removed the waitlisted label. However, as Susan also hinted at, our journal is experiencing a bit of a backlog and our reduced editorial force (as many are on holiday) are handling many submissions. The same issues may apply to finding reviewers, and getting them to commit to a quick review time. As such I just wanted to point out that, although we're doing our best, processing this review may take a bit longer than usual.

from joss-reviews.

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman I can volunteer to review this. It is in line with my field and I have also reviewed JOSS article in the past. If you see fit, you can assign me as a reviewer.

from joss-reviews.

assign @Abinashbunty as reviewer

from joss-reviews.

@Abinashbunty 👋 Thanks for volunteering ...I will assign you as a reviewer tonight.

Sorry this didn't go through the way I was expecting it to...probably because I don't have another editor yet.

from joss-reviews.

👋 @stmcg would you be interested in reviewing this package,
Thanks
Susan

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot assign @Abinashbunty as reviewer.

from joss-reviews.

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot assign @Abinashbunty as reviewer

from joss-reviews.

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot commands

from joss-reviews.

Hello @spholmes, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Add to this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot add @username as reviewer

# Remove from this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot remove @username from reviewers

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Assign a user as the editor of this submission
@editorialbot assign @username as editor

# Remove the editor assigned to this submission
@editorialbot remove editor

# Remind an author, a reviewer or the editor to return to a review after a 
# certain period of time (supported units days and weeks)
@editorialbot remind @reviewer in 2 weeks

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for version
@editorialbot set v1.0.0 as version

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Set a value for repository
@editorialbot set https://github.com/organization/repo as repository

# Set a value for the archive DOI
@editorialbot set set 10.5281/zenodo.6861996 as archive

# Mention the EiCs for the correct track
@editorialbot ping track-eic

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Recommends the submission for acceptance
@editorialbot recommend-accept

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Flag submission with questionable scope
@editorialbot query scope

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

# Creates a post-review checklist with editor and authors tasks
@editorialbot create post-review checklist

# Open the review issue
@editorialbot start review

from joss-reviews.

@Abinashbunty added to the reviewers list!

from joss-reviews.

👋 @stmcg would you be interested in reviewing this package, Thanks Susan

Thanks a lot for the invitation. This came at a particular busy time for me (am travelling very shortly) and so I won't be able to review it.

I'd suggest Carino Gurjao as a reviewer for this ([email protected]). He has reviewed for JOSS before, and he'd be interested and available to review this paper

from joss-reviews.

Thanks Sean @stmcg for the suggestion.
@carinogurjao :
Would you like to review the paper on epiworldR?
Many thanks

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot add @carinogurjao as reviewer

from joss-reviews.

@carinogurjao added to the reviewers list!

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot start review

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot start review

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate my checklist

from joss-reviews.

Checklists can only be created once the review has started in the review issue

from joss-reviews.

OK, I've started the review over in #5781.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate my checklist

Sorry the editorialbot had a lag, please go over to #5781

from joss-reviews.