search

openjournals / joss-reviews

Reviews for the Journal of Open Source Software
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
715 stars 38 forks source link

[REVIEW]: MTSS: A CUDA software for the analysis of Multivariate Time Series #1049

Closed whedon closed 5 years ago

whedon commented 5 years ago

Submitting author: @DavideNardone (Davide Nardone) Repository: https://github.com/DavideNardone/MTSS-Multivariate-Time-Series-Sofwtare Version: v1.0.0 Editor: @jedbrown Reviewer: @krischer, @karlrupp Archive: Pending

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/0a9f9006cebb80198e0ad5448cc1fc10"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/0a9f9006cebb80198e0ad5448cc1fc10/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/0a9f9006cebb80198e0ad5448cc1fc10/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/0a9f9006cebb80198e0ad5448cc1fc10)

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) 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

@krischer & @karlrupp, 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/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @jedbrown know.

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨

Review checklist for @krischer

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @karlrupp

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

whedon commented 5 years ago 
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
whedon commented 5 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

jedbrown commented 5 years ago

@DavideNardone Please check you citation format. Separate multiple citations with semicolon and choose whether they are in-text. https://rmarkdown.rstudio.com/authoring_bibliographies_and_citations.html#citation_syntax Please also check capitalization of your references (some need to be protected). Please also consider changing your long first paragraph with numbered parts to use a bulleted or numbered list formatting.

jedbrown commented 5 years ago

@whedon check references

whedon commented 5 years ago 
Attempting to check references...
whedon commented 5 years ago 

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1109/icdm.2010.21 may be missing for title: Accelerating dynamic time warping subsequence search with GPUs and FPGAs
- https://doi.org/10.1109/cvpr.2003.1211378 may be missing for title: Discovering clusters in motion time-series data
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sigpro.2005.03.014 may be missing for title: Symbolic time series analysis for anomaly detection: a comparative evaluation
- https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611974010.33 may be missing for title: On the non-trivial generalization of dynamic time warping to the multi-dimensional case
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054201 may be missing for title: A method for comparing multivariate time series with different dimensions
- https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-8191(05)80028-6 may be missing for title: Toward a better parallel performance metric

INVALID DOIs

- None
DavideNardone commented 5 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 5 years ago 
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
whedon commented 5 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

DavideNardone commented 5 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 5 years ago 
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
whedon commented 5 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

DavideNardone commented 5 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 5 years ago 
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
whedon commented 5 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

DavideNardone commented 5 years ago

@jedbrown how do I manipulate images (resize, stretch, etcc ) ?

Thank you

DavideNardone commented 5 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 5 years ago 
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
whedon commented 5 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

jedbrown commented 5 years ago

Your figures would be much better as vector graphics, e.g., PDF includes. You can set width by adding ![caption](file.png){width=4in}.

Please check in-text and capitalization for your references.

DavideNardone commented 5 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 5 years ago 
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
whedon commented 5 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

DavideNardone commented 5 years ago

Your figures would be much better as vector graphics, e.g., PDF includes. You can set width by adding ![caption](file.png){width=4in}.

This command does not work for me..

jedbrown commented 5 years ago

I looked at your repository and don't understand how you could have determined that it doesn't work.

DavideNardone commented 5 years ago

It doesn't work on Github preview. Anyway I am sick of your fussiness about everything and I want you to remove my software from your """journal""".

jedbrown commented 5 years ago
  1. Your repository does not contain a commit adding {width=...} to a figure. I don't know how you concluded that the syntax did not work without pushing it to the repo.
  2. Formatting/style standards are a normal part of research publishing. JOSS does not have staff to do post-acceptance typesetting, thus editors/reviewers will point out those issues.
  3. JOSS generally does not "reject" papers after starting a review. Instead, it strives for a constructive review to raise the submission up to the standards for publication. That takes quite a bit of effort in some cases. Of course you may withdraw your submission. Is that what you are requesting?
labarba commented 5 years ago

👋 @DavideNardone — I am the Associate Editor in Chief on rotation this week. I want to tell you that the volunteer team of editors and reviewers for JOSS dutifully works to improve the quality of the software submitted, and the communication about the software (via the paper and the documentation) to potential users. Some of the process is automated (like checking all DOIs of the references properly resolve, using the @whedon check references command), but most of it is careful manual labor—like checking capitalization in titles of cited works, layout improvements, and copy editing.

This is meant to be a constructive process of collaboration with authors. Our editors and reviewers give their time to this enterprise because we all believe that this is a valuable model for publishing.

Do you wish to continue this process until publication?

DavideNardone commented 5 years ago

Hello there,

I think the work I've done is more than enough for this journal. If you don't think so then I will not agree on doing any other work and therefore it's better to proceed with a withdraw.

Sincerely, DN

labarba commented 5 years ago

@DavideNardone, it sounds like you feel like you are working for the journal, when in fact it's the journal (and its volunteers) that is working for you. It's a bit sad, but we also care about looking after our collegial community, and your demand to accept your terms is incompatible with our ethos.

labarba commented 5 years ago

To our reviewers, @krischer and @karlrupp, a heartfelt thank you for the time invested in this review, and for choosing to be a part of our community. We couldn't do it without you! 🙏

DavideNardone commented 5 years ago

@DavideNardone, it sounds like you feel like you are working for the journal, when in fact it's the journal (and its volunteers) that is working for you. It's a bit sad, but we also care about looking after our collegial community, and your demand to accept your terms is incompatible with our ethos.

Fortunately I do not!!! You people got so fussy about this review that even IEEE would have done it faster. Your reviewers, they even didn't bother to make the second review in time. Who do you think you are? You people are a just a bunch of people full of yourself!!!