[JOSS Review] - Interface motivation, docs/JOSS paper

[ericfell]

Dear authors,

The Interface module inherently requires an array of electrode contacts (e.g. the MA8X8 array which you've open sourced). I think that COHESIVM's requirement that a device must specifically be an electrode contact array configuration should be explicitly stated early on in both the root README and the JOSS paper, as this isn't made clear.

The README's listed Key Features of contacting interfaces (Interface)... are abstracted into interchangeable units is not readily apparent, given the above requirement.

Furthermore, the only interface provided (the in-house MA8X8) appears very specific to your lab. Without more provided examples of interfaces, realistically how applicable is COHESIVM to other groups? Or should this package be refactored specifically as a use case for your specific interface?

I understand my issue seems vague... I totally agree that a modular architecture built of abstract interchangeable units enables flexibility in designing a new system, but the description of the architecture must involve concrete examples to fully motivate its use. I'll add that there is overlap in my comments here and those of enricgrau in the JOSS review thread.

This issue is related to openjournals/joss-reviews#7291

[mxwalbert]

Dear @ericfell,

we deliberately designed the package to be reusable and I think refactoring it to a specific use case would make it less applicable to other groups.

Regarding the Interface component, I still consider it interchangeable units since this can practically be anything as long as it somehow changes the contact position (which is something you would need if you want to measure combinatorial samples). Do you think it would help to implement a manual contact interface? This Interface could pause the Experiment to allow the user to physically change the contact position (e.g., by rewiring) before running the next Measurement.

We added links for the implementation tutorials and for the MA8X8 description in the README, to make them more visible.

We also addressed the comments of @enricgrau regarding the JOSS paper in this issue:

• formulated explicit key features and advantages
• described a practical example for clarifying the usage of the package
• included author contributions

Please let us know if this contributes to resolving your issues and how we should proceed.

[enricgrau]

@mxwalbert please update the manuscript.