Closed Matthew-Jennings closed 5 months ago
I think the point here about bus factor is very critical for the software itself in the future. Another dimension to the issue is getting people to review all your PRs. This, in my experience, can dramatically improve your software. In the case of this software I think the community of researchers, myself included will be very excited. It is not a JOSS requirement, but I encourage you to reach out to the community. There are those among us who will be willing to help keep the software alive and maintained. Unfortunately, the destiny of a lot of software libraries is to die when someone finishes a PhD, but it doesn't have to be this way. Feel free to reach out to me if you want more ideas on software sustainability.
In version 2.2.1 I was able to address some of the suggestions. Some things still need to be addressed:
@drcandacemakedamoore I hope we will be able to grow the community around MIRP 😃
Reopened for JOSS review.
I added a statement of need here: https://oncoray.github.io/mirp/introduction.html#why-mirp
There are now two tutorials:
The contributing section was extended:
Thanks, @alexzwanenburg!
Statement of need looks good :) - close.
What are your thoughts on this point? I do think that it's not immediately obvious to a prospective user (reading the README, or even the docs intro) what high-level functionality MIRP contains. Example/tutorials are great, but a user will assume this only shows a curated subset of functionality. You do state that it's an IBSI compliant medical image analysis toolkit, but this feels too broad. Probably the closest docs content to what I'm talking about is buried in your Contributing section under submodules
I like your tutes! Add more when you have the time/think it's suitable, but two are enough for the purposes of JOSS publication - close.
Nice to see the contrib section. Pretty well fleshed out. - close (but still consider bus factor and @drcandacemakedamoore's comments)
NEW: It took me (embarrassingly?) a little while to see that your technical reference (API documentation) was located in your DEEP DIVE section. This is probably fine, but maybe you could add "API Documentation" in parentheses next to the "DEEP DIVE" seciton title, or something. Not important for JOSS - just a thought.
Thanks for the feedback!
What are your thoughts on this point? I do think that it's not immediately obvious to a prospective user (reading the README, or even the docs intro) what high-level functionality MIRP contains. Example/tutorials are great, but a user will assume this only shows a curated subset of functionality. You do state that it's an IBSI compliant medical image analysis toolkit, but this feels too broad. Probably the closest docs content to what I'm talking about is buried in your Contributing section under submodules
I have updated the README to provide a very short overview of what MIRP does, and to show the tutorials more clearly.
NEW: It took me (embarrassingly?) a little while to see that your technical reference (API documentation) was located in your DEEP DIVE section. This is probably fine, but maybe you could add "API Documentation" in parentheses next to the "DEEP DIVE" seciton title, or something. Not important for JOSS - just a thought.
I renamed the section to Documentation and API.
Is it okay if I close this issue?
Yes, no worries
I agree with @theanega's comments regarding documentation. I suggest:
If you want to get into the weeds of documentation, Diátaxis is an excellent resource. In their parlance, you already have a Reference, my suggestion in #72 is to flesh out How-to guides and my suggestion in point 3 is either a Tutorial or an Explanation or some hybrid of the two. Points 3 (taken to its full extent) and 4 need not hold back publication in JOSS, but It would be nice to see one nicely fleshed out tutorial/explanation page for one of your core functions.