Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[REVIEW]: Special relativity in R: the lorentz package #196

Open
26 of 36 tasks
whedon opened this issue Feb 22, 2023 · 54 comments
Open
26 of 36 tasks

[REVIEW]: Special relativity in R: the lorentz package #196

whedon opened this issue Feb 22, 2023 · 54 comments
Assignees
@HaoZeke @arm61
Labels
Makefile R review TeX

Comments

@whedon
Copy link

whedon commented Feb 22, 2023 •
edited by editorialbot
Loading

Submitting author: @RobinHankin (Robin Hankin)
Repository: https://github.com/RobinHankin/lorentz
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 1.1-0
Editor: @arm61
Reviewers: @HaoZeke, @jfoadi
Archive: Pending

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/316a824a674ee61d79bd0bdb07d07ba1"><img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/316a824a674ee61d79bd0bdb07d07ba1/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/316a824a674ee61d79bd0bdb07d07ba1/status.svg)](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/316a824a674ee61d79bd0bdb07d07ba1)

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

@HaoZeke & @IanHawke, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

  1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
  2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @arm61 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 ✨

Review checklist for @HaoZeke

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
  • License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
  • Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (1.1-0)?
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@RobinHankin) 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.)

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.)
  • 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?
  • 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)?

Review checklist for @IanHawke

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
  • License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
  • Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (1.1-0)?
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@RobinHankin) 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.)

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.)
  • 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?
  • 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)?
@whedon whedon mentioned this issue Feb 22, 2023
Closed
@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Feb 22, 2023

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @HaoZeke, @IanHawke it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper 🎉.

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

⭐ 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:

watching

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

notifications

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

@whedon commands

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

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Feb 22, 2023

Wordcount for paper.md is 765

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Feb 22, 2023 

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.31 s (93.4 files/s, 18529.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVG                              1              1              1           2693
R                               14            310             76           1210
Markdown                         3             72              0            419
TeX                              5             49              0            414
Rmd                              4            122            243            108
YAML                             1              6              1             16
make                             1              2              0              8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            29            562            321           4868
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Statistical information for the repository 'c6ded0290f69d2c7bee4b4ea' was
gathered on 2023/02/22.
No commited files with the specified extensions were found.

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Feb 22, 2023

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

@arm61
Copy link

arm61 commented Feb 22, 2023

Okay, we are ready to roll!

@HaoZeke and @IanHawke thanks for agreeing to review this interesting work! If you work through the checklist and if there is any problems/comments about the material, I would recommend opening an issue on the material repository and the authors can sort them out. More information about the review guidelines can be found on the Open Journals documentation pages: https://openjournals.readthedocs.io/en/jose/reviewer_guidelines.html

If anyone has any questions just ping me on here!

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Feb 22, 2023 

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.48550/ARXIV.2012.15149 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2212.07005 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1812.11589 is OK
- 10.21105/jose.00091 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1007/bf02550347 may be a valid DOI for title: Thomas precession: its underlying gyrogroup axioms and their use in hyperbolic geometry and relativistic physics
- 10.1063/1.168517 may be a valid DOI for title: Teaching special relativity with a computer
- 10.1119/1.4938057 may be a valid DOI for title: Visualizing relativity: the OpenRelativity project
- 10.1002/andp.19053220607 may be a valid DOI for title: Über einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt
- 10.1007/978-94-015-3445-1_5 may be a valid DOI for title: Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller than that of light
- 10.1007/978-3-663-19510-8_9 may be a valid DOI for title: Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie

INVALID DOIs

- None

@arm61
Copy link

arm61 commented Feb 27, 2023

@RobinHankin it looks like there some DOIs missing from the paper, it would be great if you can fill them in when you have a chance.

@RobinHankin
Copy link

OK thanks for this, will investigate the DOI issue over at

RobinHankin/lorentz#43

  • Robin

@RobinHankin
Copy link

Missing DOI issue fixed in bd03475

  • Robin

@arm61
Copy link

arm61 commented Feb 28, 2023

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Feb 28, 2023

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

@arm61
Copy link

arm61 commented Feb 28, 2023

@whedon check references

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Feb 28, 2023 

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/bf02550347 is OK
- 10.1063/1.168517 is OK
- 10.1119/1.4938057 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2012.15149 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2212.07005 is OK
- 10.1002/andp.19053220607 is OK
- 10.1007/978-94-015-3445-1_5 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-663-19510-8_9 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1812.11589 is OK
- 10.21105/jose.00091 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

@arm61
Copy link

arm61 commented Feb 28, 2023

Perfect, thanks @RobinHankin

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Mar 8, 2023

👋 @HaoZeke, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Mar 8, 2023

👋 @IanHawke, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

@arm61
Copy link

arm61 commented Mar 21, 2023

Hey @HaoZeke and @IanHawke, thought I would check in to see how the reviews are going?

@IanHawke
Copy link

IanHawke commented Apr 8, 2023

Apologies for being slow about this - March was heavier than I expected. Will be back on this in about 10 days time. In my general look-through so far it has looked good, but I want to think about the examples and the role of Thomas precession (eg) in the docs a bit more.

@arm61
Copy link

arm61 commented May 2, 2023

@HaoZeke and @IanHawke just checking in to see how the reviews are going?

@arm61
Copy link

arm61 commented May 29, 2023

Hey all (@HaoZeke and @IanHawke), how are the reviews going?

@arm61
Copy link

arm61 commented Jul 7, 2023

I have followed up with both reviewers via email as many months have now passed without changes to the review status. I will keep you updated.

@arm61
Copy link

arm61 commented Sep 8, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Checking in one last time with @IanHawke and @HaoZeke and if there is no reply I will find alternative reviewers. My apologies for the delay.

@arm61
Copy link

arm61 commented Nov 13, 2023 •
edited
Loading

@HaoZeke I see that @RobinHankin has closed most of the issues you opened are you able to now complete the review?

@IanHawke have you had a chance to progress this at all?

@HaoZeke
Copy link
Member

HaoZeke commented Nov 13, 2023

@HaoZeke I see that @RobinHankin has closed most of the issues you opened are you able to now complete the review?

I'm not sure. @RobinHankin would it be possible to wrap up that issue sometime soon? If not, I would still recommend acceptance (since the code is relatively simple, and there are tests), but it would be nicer to have it finished :)

@RobinHankin
Copy link

RobinHankin commented Nov 13, 2023 via email

@HaoZeke
Copy link
Member

HaoZeke commented Nov 13, 2023

sorry for the delay [I have had some family and personal issues
to deal with recently].

No worries, I'm sorry to hear that, hope things are looking up.

@arm61 I completed my review checklist and am happy to recommend this for publication :)
Thanks for responding in a timely manner @RobinHankin !

@RobinHankin
Copy link

@whedon generate pdf

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator

My name is now @editorialbot

@RobinHankin
Copy link

@editorialbotbot generate pdf

@RobinHankin
Copy link

@editorialbot generate pdf

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator

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

@RobinHankin
Copy link

@editorialbot generate pdf

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator

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

@arm61
Copy link

arm61 commented Apr 4, 2024

I am no longer getting responses from @IanHawke, therefore I will start to look for a new reviewer.

@arm61
Copy link

arm61 commented Apr 4, 2024

@hughshanahan, @jwagemann, or @dpshelio would any of you be interested in reviewing this JOSE paper?

@arm61
Copy link

arm61 commented Aug 28, 2024

@editorialbot remove @IanHawke from reviewers

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator

@IanHawke removed from the reviewers list!

@arm61
Copy link

arm61 commented Aug 28, 2024

@editorialbot assign @jfoadi to reviewers

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator

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

@editorialbot commands

@arm61
Copy link

arm61 commented Aug 28, 2024

@editorialbot add @jfoadi to reviewers

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator

@jfoadi added to the reviewers list!

@arm61
Copy link

arm61 commented Aug 28, 2024

Hey @jfoadi, if you comment

@editorialbot generate my checklist

you should get a fresh review checklist to work through. More information about reviewing for JOSE can be found here (https://openjournals.readthedocs.io/en/jose/reviewer_guidelines.html) and if you have any questions please just ask.

Thanks again for agreeing to review for JOSE!

@jfoadi
Copy link

jfoadi commented Aug 28, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Review checklist for @jfoadi

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/RobinHankin/lorentz?
  • License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
  • Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release?
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@RobinHankin) 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.)

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.)
  • 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?
  • 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)?

@jfoadi
Copy link

jfoadi commented Aug 28, 2024

@editorialbot commands

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator

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


# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

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

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

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

# Run checks and provide information on the repository and the paper file
@editorialbot check repository

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

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

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

@jfoadi
Copy link

jfoadi commented Sep 3, 2024

@editorialbot generate pdf

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator

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

@arm61
Copy link

arm61 commented Oct 6, 2024

@jfoadi no pressure, how’s the review going?

@jfoadi
Copy link

jfoadi commented Oct 14, 2024 via email

@arm61
Copy link

arm61 commented Oct 14, 2024

No worries @jfoadi (I feel the same way with the start of teaching here in Bristol!)

@arm61
Copy link

arm61 commented Dec 3, 2024

Hey @jfoadi, I hope that the teaching term hasn't been to tough on you. Just wondering if you have a chance to take a look at this review.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@HaoZeke HaoZeke

@arm61 arm61

Labels
Makefile R review TeX
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
7 participants
@jfoadi @IanHawke @HaoZeke @RobinHankin @arm61 @whedon @editorialbot