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

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

@whedon commands

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors

# List of reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf

@ejdanderson You might want to have a look at https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html for some guidance on how to tick the boxes above, let me know if you have any doubts about the process. When in doubt, you can check other issues in this same issue tracker and see how different software reviews went, thanks again for your efforts!

👋 @ejdanderson Let me know if you have any doubts on how to proceed :)

Great thanks! I'll have time this weekend to review.

@brainstorm There appears to be plenty of documentation, tests, and example programs to draw from for the software. Unfortunately, I imagine most people will be installing this via docker, which I was unable to do following the instructions (see Installation below).

Authorship:

• Djeylan Aktas - It is unclear of Atkas’ contribution to the software. Are they an academic advisor?

Installation:

I have attempted to install this via the docker installation and was presented an error (even post typo fix) see issue 6.

Community guidelines:

It would be worthwhile to explicitly state how contributions, issues, and support can be made via the README. Either a separate contribution.md file (example) or a few lines in the README itself is recommended. I found the Coding.md file to be very informative, thank you for including this.

Software paper

• @brainstorm Can you comment on the requirement of having a Summary heading? The introduction serves as a valid summary, but likely needs to be changed to "Summary"

• Either expand the approach heading or remove it.

@richardcollins, would you mind addressing the installation defects and authorship question pointed by @ejdanderson?

@ejdanderson, firstly thanks much for your review efforts so far! Regarding the community guidelines, I agree one could use what you point out and/or GitHub's builtin support for it. I do think that the "summary requirement" is already covered by the "Introduction" section in paper.md while I also agree that it should be hinted briefly on the README.md so that people exploring the repository can have a quick overview of the software repository.

Ping @richardcollins

@ejdanderson I've changed the heading in the paper to Summary.
@brainstorm wrt the contributions, Djeylan and others have provided details on the algorithms and the technical aspects of QKD but havn't written code in this project - do I need to cite them in a different way?

@richardcollins According to the JOSS reviewer guidelines you, as the author, take the responsibility for authorship claims, so thanks for stating it here, that should suffice AFAICT.

@ejdanderson Feel free to carry on with the remaining items whenever you can.

Cheers!

Thanks, I'll take a look this week.

@ejdanderson Let me know if you have any doubts regarding any of the review points, happy to help!

👋 @ejdanderson, sorry to bother you with this, if it's tricky to test/install that's also a valid feedback for the author :)

@ejdanderson, Sorry to bug you about this but are you able to spend some time on this? - I'm happy to answer questions. I need to report my publications in a progress report and this has been noted as stalled.

At this point, we're beset by a delinquent reviewer, and one possible course of action is to find a second reviewer who is willing to fast-track this submission.

@brainstorm — try to find someone willing to make such a contribution to JOSS. You'll need to manually edit the first post in this thread to add a new checklist for the reviewer. If they have already reviewed for JOSS, they will have permissions to tick off the items. If not, we'll have to add them as collaborator to the joss-reviews repo (which I think only @arfon can do).

I'm contacting two additional quantum computing researchers through a common contact, hopefully they'll be able and willing to review and fast-track this paper. Thanks for your patience @richardcollins and @labarba for the additional editorial pointers, this is the first case of many papers that a reviewer went missing for me.

Hello @arturgs, @brunojulia recommended you as a possible reviewer for this quantum key distribution paper, would you be interested in reviewing it? The process is fairly straightforward and semi-automated via GitHub:

https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Let me know if you are interested!

Hello @SwamyDev, I peeked at your https://github.com/SwamyDev/q_network QKD framework and thought that you could assist JOSS (Journal of Open Source Software) on reviewing this software:

https://gitlab.com/QComms/cqptoolkit

The review process is held via this issue and here on Github, please let us know if you are interested in reviewing this software publication.

👋 @brainstorm - what's happening here? It looks like this has been waiting for a new reviewer for about 6 weeks?