[PRE REVIEW]: PyNomaly

[whedon]

Submitting author: @vc1492a (Valentino Constantinou)
Repository: https://www.github.com/vc1492a/PyNomaly
Version: v0.2.0
Editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Reviewers: @yzhao062

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @vc1492a. The JOSS editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@vc1492a if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon. I'm here to help you with some common editorial tasks.

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

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

--> Check article proof 📄 <--

[arfon]

👋@vc1492a - it looks like you're missing references in this paper. Is there nothing you wish to cite?

[vc1492a]

@arfon I was under the impression that references should be included in paper.bib. The examples linked from the JOSS website show references in paper.bib and not in paper.md. Should I also add my references to paper.md?

[arfon]

@vc1492a - I think the issue is that you're not citing them directly (so they're not showing up in the compiled PDF). You can read how to do that here

[vc1492a]

@afron thanks for the helpful link. I've updated my citations in paper.md, let me know if it looks good to you.

[arfon]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

--> Check article proof 📄 <--

[arfon]

@whedon list reviewers

[whedon]

Here's the current list of reviewers: https://bit.ly/joss-reviewers

[arfon]

@vc1492a - could you take a look at the list of potential reviewers above and suggest a few that might be appropriate for your submission? ☝️

[vc1492a]

@arfon I took a look at the list of potential reviewers. Here are my suggestions:

• jkahn
• desilinguist
• krother

[vc1492a]

@arfon I've made one small minor adjustment to fix a typo, in case you need to generate a new proof.

[arfon]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

--> Check article proof 📄 <--

[arfon]

@mlgill @sssomani - would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS?

[mlgill]

@arfon sorry, I don’t have much experience with this topic.

[sssomani]

@arfon likewise.

On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 10:00 AM Michelle Gill ***@***.***> wrote: @arfon <https://github.com/arfon> sorry, I don’t have much experience with this topic. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#730 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AS646K3xrZeBbdOUhMQEXCit60AIxd0Hks5t0CWEgaJpZM4T4teq> .

-- Sulaiman Somani Medical Student Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

[arfon]

@nhejazi @fritzo - would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS?

[arfon]

@jkahn - would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS?

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@yzhao062 @betatim @aqibsaeed @rhiever would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The review process focuses largely on the software and a short paper.

--> The paper 📄 <--

--> The project repo 💾 : <--

[yzhao062]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman I am happy to review PyNomaly since I used it in one of my previous research. Just need to get familiar with the review process :)

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@whedon assign @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman as editor

[whedon]

OK, the editor is @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@whedon assign @yzhao062 as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, the reviewer is @yzhao062

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@yzhao062 great thanks. I've added you as reviewer and will attempt to recruit a few more. Let me know if you have questions about the review process. This issue here is a so called pre-review issue. Once we have sufficient reviewers we'll move on to a review issue where the actual review takes place. I'll ping you there when we are ready.
The review process is guided by a set of tickboxes for each reviewer. Here is a nice example of a finished review process: #726
As you can see the reviewers comment in the review issue to provide feedback but also create PR's or issues on the project repository as well.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@whedon start review magic-word=bananas

[whedon]

OK, I've started the review over in #845. Feel free to close this issue now!