Authors metadata

[asmeurer]

Some updates in the authors metadata, in line with #205. The authors metadata in the paper has to match the metadata in the PeerJ system.

[scopatz]

LGTM

[asmeurer]

Three things I am not clear on (I'll just pick one for each, since I am submitting today, unless someone has some suggestions):

• Should the email be included in the affiliations?
• Should the Los Alamos and Sandia disclaimers be included in the affiliations?
• For authors with multiple affiliations (like Andy Terrel and Matthew Curry), is the separating of the multiple institutions with a semicolon fine?

I couldn't find any other PeerJ articles with authors from Los Alamos or Sandia.

[asmeurer]

So:

• No other peerj article seems to include the email addresses in the footnotes. So I'm going to remove them. I guess the idea is that they are available via the PeerJ site.
• As per Technical changes checklist #205, I am removing the Los Alamos and Sandia statements from the footnotes (they will go in the funding statement, see Technical changes checklist #205 (comment)).
• I am going to leave the multiple institutions as they are.

[certik]

@asmeurer just make sure the full LANL and Sandia statements are available in the final article, one way or another.

[certik]

Otherwise this looks good.

[certik]

I am reviewing 6bb9c09.

• The rebuttal.pdf looks good to me. The cover letter at the beginning is fine, and I went through the points, that looks good.
• The paper.pdf looks very good to me. Just a minor comment:

SymPy supports a wide array of mathematical facilities. This includes functions for assum-
ing and deducing common mathematical facts, simplifying expressions

-> These include?

I am still reviewing.

[certik]

SymPy a dependency
of many external projects across a wide spectrum of domains.

-> SymPy is a dependency

[asmeurer]

Can you make a separate branch + PR with your fixes?

[certik]

This permits users to access to the same methods

-> ... permits users to access the same methods?

[certik]

Otherwise the paper is ok.

The supplement:

The supplementary material take

-> takes?

[certik]

Those are the things I noticed.

@asmeurer I can't create the PR right now. Plus, please check the grammar fixes that I suggested above yourself and with @scopatz, as I am not a native speaker. Then just fix it and upload it.

Otherwise +1 from me.

[scopatz]

Your suggestions @certik seem correct to me!

[asmeurer]

Figured out point 3. They should be separate footnotes (duh).

[asmeurer]

OK, I'm done here. This now matches what PeerJ generates on their site:

Aaron Meurer​1, Christopher P Smith2, Mateusz Paprocki3, Ondřej Čertík4, Sergey B Kirpichev5, Matthew Rocklin3, AMiT Kumar6, Sergiu Ivanov7, Jason K Moore8, Sartaj Singh9, Thilina Rathnayake10, Sean Vig11, Brian E Granger12, Richard P Muller13, Francesco Bonazzi14, Harsh Gupta15, Shivam Vats15, Fredrik Johansson16, Fabian Pedregosa17, Matthew J Curry18, 19, 20, Andy R Terrel21, 22, Štěpán Roučka23, Ashutosh Saboo24, Isuru Fernando10, Sumith Kulal25, Robert Cimrman26, Anthony Scopatz1
1Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, United States
2Polar Semiconductor, Inc., Bloomington, Minnesota, United States
3Continuum Analytics, Inc., Austin, Texas, United States
4Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, United States
5Faculty of Physics, Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
6Department of Applied Mathematics, Delhi Technological University, New Delhi, India
7Université Paris Est Créteil, Créteil, France
8Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California, Davis, Davis, California, United States
9Mathematical Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology (BHU), Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India
10Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Moratuwa, Katubedda, Moratuwa, Sri Lanka
11University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, United States
12California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, United States
13Center for Computing Research, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
14Department of Theory and Bio-Systems, Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces, Potsdam, Germany
15Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India
16INRIA Bordeaux-Sud-Ouest -- LFANT project-team, Talence, France
17INRIA -- SIERRA project-team, Paris, France
18Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
19Center for Quantum Information and Control, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
20Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
21Fashion Metric, Inc, Austin, Texas, United States
22NumFOCUS, Austin, TX, United States
23Department of Surface and Plasma Science, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University in Prague, Praha, Czech Republic
24Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, K.K. Birla Goa Campus, Sancoale, Goa, India
25Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
26New Technologies -- Research Centre, University of West Bohemia, Plzeň, Czech Republic

except we have "and" before "Anthony Scopatz". That probably doesn't matter. I think they will reformat the paper and use their own metadata to format the authors, not ours, so it only matters that the information is the same.

[ashutoshsaboo]

Hi @asmeurer , I am not sure if my PeerJ address - https://peerj.com/ashutoshsaboo/ is linked to my name in the Authors database for this paper or not. Can you check for the same?

[asmeurer]

@ashutoshsaboo it seems it is not. What is the email address that should be used? I think that is how it associates accounts. The one we have in PeerJ is [email protected].

[ashutoshsaboo]

That is the one that is linked to my PeerJ account as well. Can you check as to why it is not linking to my profile? Check this image as well - (Can we link with the username, because I guess PeerJ might support that? , or through the ORCID - Mine ORCID is ORCID: 0000-0001-9354-7811 ? )

This is my profile image-:

This is the ORCID image (I guess ORCID is itself used for linking accounts to their PeerJ profiles, as you can see in the screenshot) -:

[asmeurer]

I don't see anything that might fix it. The emails do seem to be the same. I think there mgiht be a bug in their system. All the other authors either say "Confirmed" or "Invited 108 days ago", but on yours it doesn't say either.

I would suggest contacting PeerJ about this. The manuscript submission number is 11410.

[asmeurer]

This is probably related to #202 (comment). I originally had a different email for you, but I changed it.

[ashutoshsaboo]

@asmeurer Try inviting me again on PeerJ for authorship on that paper?

[ashutoshsaboo]

@asmeurer I wrote a mail to PeerJ, let's see what they reply to it. Meanwhile, if you can try to re-invite me for the authorship on PeerJ?

[asmeurer]

PeerJ sent me an email that you accepted the invitation, and I see the preprint on your author page now.

[ashutoshsaboo]

@asmeurer Yes I accepted the invite. Thanks for the same. 👍