Feature/joss paper

[RafaelPalomar]

This is a revised draft for the JOSS submission.

@everyone review the draft and leave your comments as a review.
@olevs could you check the pdf artifact is properly configured and set for this branch/PR? at least as a branch I could not get it to build.

[olevs]

@RafaelPalomar I fixed a bug in the .yml file, but it won't run. You probably have to go to Settings->Actions->General and select "Allow all actions and reusable workflows"

[RafaelPalomar]

@olevs, @gatangen, @dalbenzioG, @RuoyanMeng thanks to Ole V., now we have the generation of the pdf paper in a workflow (go to the "Actions" menu, look for the last build and see the built artifact "paper.zip").

@dalbenzioG you don't seem to have an ORCID? You should probably register and add your ORCID ID to the paper.
@RuoyanMeng your orcid may not be correct or may not be public. When I click on the ORCID link rendered in the pdf I can't see any content (please, check).

@dalbenzioG, @RuoyanMeng, please replace the segments figure by one figure with proper Couinaud segments. The one provided only considers one segment and the rest of the parenchyma.

@everyone, please, review the pdf manuscript and approve the github PR review so I know you are ok with the draft

[dalbenzioG]

@olevs, @gatangen, @dalbenzioG, @RuoyanMeng thanks to Ole V., now we have the generation of the pdf paper in a workflow (go to the "Actions" menu, look for the last build and see the built artifact "paper.zip").

@dalbenzioG you don't seem to have an ORCID? You should probably register and add your ORCID ID to the paper. @RuoyanMeng your orcid may not be correct or may not be public. When I click on the ORCID link rendered in the pdf I can't see any content (please, check).

@dalbenzioG, @RuoyanMeng, please replace the segments figure by one figure with proper Couinaud segments. The one provided only considers one segment and the rest of the parenchyma.

@everyone, please, review the pdf manuscript and approve the github PR review so I know you are ok with the draft

Thank you @olevs!
@RafaelPalomar I will add my ORCID and a figure with proper Couinaud segments ASAP.

[RuoyanMeng]

@olevs, @gatangen, @dalbenzioG, @RuoyanMeng thanks to Ole V., now we have the generation of the pdf paper in a workflow (go to the "Actions" menu, look for the last build and see the built artifact "paper.zip").

@dalbenzioG you don't seem to have an ORCID? You should probably register and add your ORCID ID to the paper. @RuoyanMeng your orcid may not be correct or may not be public. When I click on the ORCID link rendered in the pdf I can't see any content (please, check).

@dalbenzioG, @RuoyanMeng, please replace the segments figure by one figure with proper Couinaud segments. The one provided only considers one segment and the rest of the parenchyma.

@everyone, please, review the pdf manuscript and approve the github PR review so I know you are ok with the draft

Thanks @RafaelPalomar and @olevs.
I have fixed the ORCID issue from orcid website.

[RuoyanMeng]

@dalbenzioG Could you try to take back the commit that removed {width= 100%}, it's used for indicating the width of resectogram pic, it won't show in build pdf :-)

[olevs]

@dalbenzioG I did some changes to your last commits: Use only one ref to fig 4 in the text, and moved the Bismuth 1982 ref (otherwise it may have looked like figure 4 was from the Bismuth paper)
Please check if you agree with my changes

[dalbenzioG]

@dalbenzioG I did some changes to your last commits: Use only one ref to fig 4 in the text, and moved the Bismuth 1982 ref (otherwise it may have looked like figure 4 was from the Bismuth paper) Please check if you agree with my changes

Thank you, @olevs. You are right!

[dalbenzioG]

@dalbenzioG Could you try to take back the commit that removed {width= 100%}, it's used for indicating the width of resectogram pic, it won't show in build pdf :-)

Thank you,@RuoyanMeng, for spotting the error! I have reverted the changes.

[gatangen]

Regarding license we state in the source code files : "Distributed under the OSI-approved BSD 3-Clause License." Is this identical to the MIT license referenced in the paper text?

[RafaelPalomar]

I'll proceed with the submission (most likely next week)