search

openjournals / jose-reviews

Reviews for the Journal of Open Source Education (JOSE)
http://jose.theoj.org
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
33 stars 4 forks source link

[REVIEW]: Interactive Bin Packing: A Java Application for Learning Constructive Heuristics for Combinatorial Optimization #140

Closed whedon closed 2 years ago

whedon commented 3 years ago

Submitting author: @cicirello (Vincent A Cicirello) Repository: https://github.com/cicirello/InteractiveBinPacking Version: v3.1.1 Editor: @labarba Reviewers: @turketwh Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.6402123

:warning: JOSE reduced service mode :warning:

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSE is currently operating in a "reduced service mode".

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/c994f4aab2b351e9c2fee12113bd2130"><img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/c994f4aab2b351e9c2fee12113bd2130/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/c994f4aab2b351e9c2fee12113bd2130/status.svg)](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/c994f4aab2b351e9c2fee12113bd2130)

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

@adeepak7 & @turketwh, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

  1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
  2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @labarba know.

āœØ 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 āœØ

Review checklist for @adeepak7

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @turketwh

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

whedon commented 3 years ago

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @adeepak7, @turketwh it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper :tada:.

:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

:star: Important :star:

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews šŸ˜æ

To fix this do the following two things:

  1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews:

watching

  1. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf
whedon commented 3 years ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 976

whedon commented 3 years ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/ICPP.1999.797428 is OK
- 10.1007/s11276-005-5266-y is OK
- 10.1145/1508865.1508951 is OK
- 10.1145/1047344.1047409 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1007/springerreference_5277 may be a valid DOI for title: Bin packing

INVALID DOIs

- None
whedon commented 3 years ago 
Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.13 s (308.7 files/s, 66797.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Java                            20            526           1034           4410
TeX                              3            160            143            557
HTML                             4            106              0            556
Markdown                         5             96              0            425
Maven                            1             17              0            313
YAML                             5             45             46            185
JSON                             1              0              0             24
TOML                             1              2              6              3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            40            952           1229           6473
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statistical information for the repository '8d8fc100a6067187e3fa8e32' was
gathered on 2021/10/05.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Vincent A. Cicirello            53          3582            713           58.06
Vincent Cicirello                3          3102              1           41.94

Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:

Author                     Rows      Stability          Age       % in comments
Vincent A. Cicirello       5970          166.7          0.4               17.32
whedon commented 3 years ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

labarba commented 3 years ago

@adeepak7, @turketwh ā€” Thank you for agreeing to review for JOSE! This is where the action happens: work your way through the review checklist, feel free to ask questions or post comments here, and also open issues in the submission repository as needed. If you do, be sure to include a link to this Review issue, so a cross-link will be created. Godspeed! šŸš€

labarba commented 3 years ago

Hi @adeepak7, @turketwh ā€” do you have any questions about how the JOSE review process works? Feel free to ask me here.

@adeepak7 ā€” I see you've not gotten a start yet. If you could pop in here and check off the first few items in your checklist, that'll tell me you're still with us on this! šŸ™

turketwh commented 3 years ago

@labarba - Thanks for the note. Yes, things seem clear to me about the review process. Continuing to work through the review!

whedon commented 3 years ago

:wave: @turketwh, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

whedon commented 3 years ago

:wave: @adeepak7, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

adeepak7 commented 3 years ago

@whedon and @labarba Thanks for reaching out. As this is my first time, I am currently reading the reviews for the other submissions to again more understanding of how things are done.

whedon commented 3 years ago

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@whedon commands
labarba commented 3 years ago

@adeepak7 ā€” Feel free to ask me any questions right here!

And by the way @whedon is our editorial bot, and only knows to reply to certain commands šŸ˜„

labarba commented 2 years ago

@adeepak7 Do you have any question about how to do this review? I'll be happy to help, just let me know!

labarba commented 2 years ago

@turketwh How is it going with your review? You should feel free to open issues in the target repository with any questions for the author (linking this issue thread for reference).

turketwh commented 2 years ago

@turketwh How is it going with your review? You should feel free to open issues in the target repository with any questions for the author (linking this issue thread for reference).

Making progress (has been slow, but picking up now) - thanks for the note @labarba

labarba commented 2 years ago

I just pinged @adeepak7 via Twitter, in case his GitHub notifications are not going through!

cicirello commented 2 years ago

@whedon commands

whedon commented 2 years ago

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors

# List of reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers

EDITORIAL TASKS

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf

# Compile the paper from alternative branch
@whedon generate pdf from branch custom-branch-name

# Ask Whedon to check the references for missing DOIs
@whedon check references

# Ask Whedon to check repository statistics for the submitted software
@whedon check repository
cicirello commented 2 years ago

@whedon check references

whedon commented 2 years ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/ICPP.1999.797428 is OK
- 10.1007/s11276-005-5266-y is OK
- 10.1145/1508865.1508951 is OK
- 10.1145/1047344.1047409 is OK
- 10.1145/3017680.3017762 is OK
- 10.1145/3017680.3017728 is OK
- 10.1145/3159450.3159602 is OK
- 10.1145/3287324.3287480 is OK
- 10.1145/3017680.3017793 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1007/springerreference_5277 may be a valid DOI for title: Bin packing

INVALID DOIs

- None
cicirello commented 2 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 2 years ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

turketwh commented 2 years ago

@labarba @cicirello I have (effectively) finished my review of this JOSE submission. I have left the Version box under the General checks criteria unchecked, as I believe the version in the repository is 3.1.0, while it was originally submitted as version 3.0 (as indicated at the top of this review issue).

I asked the author to address three concerns during the review process, impacting the documentation around installation and support, the Java API documentation, and the Statement of need in the publication itself. I am satisfied with the author's addressing of each concern.

I am in favor of accepting the submission.

In my opinion, I believe the software, embedded tutorial, example assignments , and accompanying manuscript make a valuable contribution as an open-source educational tool. Bin packing, as an example of a NP-hard optimization problem, and the idea of heuristics appear in multiple computer science and mathematics courses, suggesting broad applicability. From using the software, I would argue that the number of heuristics covered and the range of bin packing problems that can be initialized allow for repeated, non-trivial student learning experiences and the example assignments provide a template for how to curate such experiences. From reviewing the code, the software itself appears cleanly written and well tested, and, in my opinion, is in a state that facilitates extension by others if desired. The software provides capabilities that go beyond other bin packing tutorials that I can find available and it incorporates various pedagogical best practices.

cicirello commented 2 years ago

@turketwh thank you for your feedback during the review process. It was valuable in improving the paper and documentation, etc.

cicirello commented 2 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 2 years ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

labarba commented 2 years ago

Thank you for the detailed feedback, @turketwh ā€” most appreciated! šŸ™

labarba commented 2 years ago

@adeepak7 ā€” You agreed to review a submission for The Journal of Open Source Education some time ago. We now have a returned full review, and would like to move this forward. Are you able to provide your review in a short span of time?

labarba commented 2 years ago

I have now sent the first reviewer an email asking for an update.

labarba commented 2 years ago

@whedon remove @adeepak7 as reviewer

whedon commented 2 years ago

OK, @adeepak7 is no longer a reviewer

labarba commented 2 years ago

hi folks, I received email from @adeepak7 saying personal difficulties made it impossible to complete the review. We are now minus a reviewer. Thanks for your patience.

cicirello commented 2 years ago

@labarba thanks for the update

labarba commented 2 years ago

Given the positive (and informative!) review from @turketwh, I will proceed with acceptance of this submission without seeking to replace the second reviewer, who had to bow out. Thank you all for your patience in the review process.

labarba commented 2 years ago

@whedon recommend-accept

whedon commented 2 years ago

No archive DOI set. Exiting...

labarba commented 2 years ago

Oops. I forgot the final steps. @cicirello ā€“ could you:

cicirello commented 2 years ago

@labarba Great. I'll create the release and archive with Zenodo tomorrow morning. I'll comment again after I do.

cicirello commented 2 years ago

@labarba the version number is v3.1.1 and the Zenodo DOI is https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6402123

labarba commented 2 years ago

@whedon set v3.1.1 as version

whedon commented 2 years ago

OK. v3.1.1 is the version.

labarba commented 2 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.6402123 as archive

whedon commented 2 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.6402123 is the archive.

labarba commented 2 years ago

@whedon recommend-accept

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

- 10.1109/ICPP.1999.797428 is OK
- 10.1007/s11276-005-5266-y is OK
- 10.1145/1508865.1508951 is OK
- 10.1145/1047344.1047409 is OK
- 10.1145/3017680.3017762 is OK
- 10.1145/3017680.3017728 is OK
- 10.1145/3159450.3159602 is OK
- 10.1145/3287324.3287480 is OK
- 10.1145/3017680.3017793 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1007/springerreference_5277 may be a valid DOI for title: Bin packing

INVALID DOIs

- None
whedon commented 2 years ago

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

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-papers/pull/84

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/jose-papers/pull/84, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true
labarba commented 2 years ago

@cicirello ā€“ Please give us your approval of the proof, and we will proceed to publication

cicirello commented 2 years ago

@labarba the proof looks good.