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.

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

[REVIEW]: LATTE: Lightcurve Analysis Tool for Transiting Exoplanets #2101

Open
whedon opened this issue Feb 13, 2020 · 8 comments
Open

[REVIEW]: LATTE: Lightcurve Analysis Tool for Transiting Exoplanets #2101

whedon opened this issue Feb 13, 2020 · 8 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator

@whedon whedon commented Feb 13, 2020

Submitting author: @noraeisner (N. L. Eisner)
Repository: https://github.com/noraeisner/LATTE
Version: v0.0.12
Editor: @xuanxu
Reviewer: @christinahedges, @aureliocarnero
Archive: Pending

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/216060523b5767f7d2d7c05c4e2257bc"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/216060523b5767f7d2d7c05c4e2257bc/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/216060523b5767f7d2d7c05c4e2257bc/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/216060523b5767f7d2d7c05c4e2257bc)

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

@christinahedges & @aureliocarnero, 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/joss-reviews/invitations

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

Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks

Review checklist for @christinahedges

Conflict of interest

  • I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

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?
  • Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@noraeisner) made major 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?
  • 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 what problems the software is designed to solve 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 (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
  • Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
  • Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality 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

  • Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
  • Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
  • References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

Review checklist for @aureliocarnero

Conflict of interest

  • I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

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?
  • Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@noraeisner) made major 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?
  • 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 what problems the software is designed to solve 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 (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
  • Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
  • Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality 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

  • Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
  • Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
  • References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Feb 13, 2020

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @christinahedges, @aureliocarnero it looks like you're currently assigned to review 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:

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Feb 13, 2020

@xuanxu

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@xuanxu xuanxu commented Feb 13, 2020

@christinahedges, @aureliocarnero, @noraeisner: this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

Both reviewers have checklists at the top of this thread with the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#2101 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if any of you require some more time. We can also use Whedon (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ask me (or the submitting author, or each other) if you have any questions :)

@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Feb 13, 2020

@xuanxu - be aware that being in an active collaboration is a conflict - perhaps this review can be completed before the collaboration between @christinahedges and the authors starts

@xuanxu

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@xuanxu xuanxu commented Feb 13, 2020

@danielskatz Agreed. By her comment I understood that she is not collaborating yet and I assumed there was time enough for the review to finish before the visit, but you are right that's just an assumption I made. @christinahedges can you please clarify this point?

@christinahedges

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@christinahedges christinahedges commented Feb 13, 2020

Hi @xuanxu and @danielskatz, yes I am not currently collaborating with Norah, our collaboration starts in a few months. If you're happy this is not a conflict then I'm happy! 👍

@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Feb 13, 2020

sounds good to me

@xuanxu

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@xuanxu xuanxu commented Feb 13, 2020

👍

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.