[REVIEW]: ReactiveMP.jl: A Julia Package for Reactive Message Passing-based Bayesian Inference

whedon commented 2 years ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@bvdmitri<!--end-author-handle-- (Dmitry Bagaev) Repository: https://github.com/biaslab/ReactiveMP.jl Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.3.1 Editor: Reviewers: @ludgerpaehler, @torfjelde Archive:

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/d3ea9d7a33de29ee7c74f38b3cd7b43c"><img src="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/d3ea9d7a33de29ee7c74f38b3cd7b43c/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/d3ea9d7a33de29ee7c74f38b3cd7b43c/status.svg)](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/d3ea9d7a33de29ee7c74f38b3cd7b43c)

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

@ludgerpaehler & @torfjelde, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
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 @matbesancon know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Review checklist for @ludgerpaehler

Conflict of interest

[x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JuliaCon conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JuliaCon code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@bvdmitri) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] 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

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
[x] 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

Paper format

[x] Authors: Does the paper.tex file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
[x] Page limit: Is the page limit for extended abstracts respected by the submitted document?

Content

[x] Context: is the scientific context motivating the work correctly presented?
[x] Methodology: is the approach taken in the work justified, presented with enough details and reference to reproduce it?
[x] Results: are the results presented and compared to approaches with similar goals?

Review checklist for @torfjelde

Conflict of interest
[x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JuliaCon conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JuliaCon code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@bvdmitri) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] 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

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
[x] 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

Paper format

[x] Authors: Does the paper.tex file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
[x] Page limit: Is the page limit for extended abstracts respected by the submitted document?

Content

[x] Context: is the scientific context motivating the work correctly presented?
[x] Methodology: is the approach taken in the work justified, presented with enough details and reference to reproduce it?
[x] Results: are the results presented and compared to approaches with similar goals?

matbesancon commented 2 years ago

@whedon recommend-accept from branch paper/julia_proceedings_2021

whedon commented 2 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon commented 2 years ago

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.3390/e23070807 is OK
- 10.1287/opre.38.5.911 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ijar.2018.11.002 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon commented 2 years ago

:wave: @JuliaCon/jcon-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-papers/pull/53

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-papers/pull/53, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true from branch paper/julia_proceedings_2021

matbesancon commented 2 years ago

@bvdmitri can you take a look at the paper produced and let us know if all good on your side?

bvdmitri commented 2 years ago

@matbesancon yeap, that what I was doing a couple of minutes ago. I didn't notice anything wrong, everything is good on my side. I think it is in a good shape! Thanks for your effort!

matbesancon commented 2 years ago

@whedon accept from branch paper/julia_proceedings_2021

matbesancon commented 2 years ago

@whedon accept

vchuravy commented 2 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true from branch paper/julia_proceedings_2021

whedon commented 2 years ago

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

whedon commented 2 years ago

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JCON! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-papers/pull/54
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/jcon.00091
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

whedon commented 2 years ago

:tada::tada::tada: Congratulations on your paper acceptance! :tada::tada::tada:

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/10.21105/jcon.00091/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/jcon.00091)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/jcon.00091">
  <img src="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/10.21105/jcon.00091/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/10.21105/jcon.00091/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/jcon.00091

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

JuliaCon Proceedings is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://forms.gle/yANMe4c9YmuW9MWcA
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.salsalabs.org/donate-to-jcon

JuliaCon / proceedings-review