[REVIEW]: DeconvOptim.jl - Signal Deconvolution with Julia

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@roflmaostc<!--end-author-handle-- (Felix Wechsler) Repository: https://github.com/roflmaostc/DeconvOptim.jl Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v0.7.1 Editor: Reviewers: @sloede, @matbesancon Archive:

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/fbb7d7d0388a8a9f2f97cecc632cf29a"><img src="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/fbb7d7d0388a8a9f2f97cecc632cf29a/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/fbb7d7d0388a8a9f2f97cecc632cf29a/status.svg)](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/fbb7d7d0388a8a9f2f97cecc632cf29a)

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

@sloede & @matbesancon, 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 @vchuravy 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 @sloede

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 (@roflmaostc) 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?
[ ] 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 full papers 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 @matbesancon

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.