[PRE REVIEW]: Xono2L: an eXtensible, LabVIEW-compatible real-time sONOgraphic data capture and processing TOOL

[whedon]

Submitting author: @dzhoshkun (Dzhoshkun Ismail Shakir) Repository: https://github.com/gift-surg/Xono2L Version: v0.1.0 Editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Reviewer: Pending

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @dzhoshkun. The JOSS editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@dzhoshkun if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

[jedbrown]

I think that's fine. To do multiple citations, use [@ref1;@ref2] (with a semicolon) to get it to format correctly. https://rmarkdown.rstudio.com/authoring_bibliographies_and_citations.html#citation_syntax

[dzhoshkun]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

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

[dzhoshkun]

@FaustinCarter Would you be able to (help) edit this submission?

[dzhoshkun]

Adding @tvercaut to this thread as well.

[kyleniemeyer]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman it looks like you are planning to edit this submission, so I will go ahead and formalize that 😄

[kyleniemeyer]

@whedon assign @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman as editor

[whedon]

OK, the editor is @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

[FaustinCarter]

@dzhoshkun Unfortunately I no longer have access to LabVIEW so I'd be unable to run it/test it.

[dzhoshkun]

@FaustinCarter No problem. Thanks for letting us know.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@dzhoshkun I've contacted quite a few people but so far all work on different hardware/software so did not feel they were able to review this work. I'll continue my search but in the mean time, are you able to suggest reviewers?

[FaustinCarter]

You might try asking @petebarry1988. Don't know if he'll have time or be willing, but he's got the background.

[dzhoshkun]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Thanks. I've contacted our collaborators in this project, will let you know if they know any potential reviewers.

[dzhoshkun]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman I've asked a number of people with a relevant background to review this paper. Will update you if and when I hear back from them.

[lassoan]

@dzhoshkun contacted me to review this submission - here are my comments:

It is nice that you took the effort to share this software. Unfortunately, the potential number of users of the software is very small, because very few people would consider using LabView for ultrasound imaging (especially in the open-source community) and the software only supports Ultrasonix machines, which are discontinued (production stopped about a year ago and can no longer be purchased).

I don't think you can find a reviewer who would independently verify "functionality" of the software (according to https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html) because you need LabView, Ultrasonix, and willingness to spend time with it. (in my case: I don't have LabView and do not have time to spend on this)

[dzhoshkun]

@lassoan Thank you very much for your comments and the insight.

[davidbradway]

I echo the comments of @lassoan . Though I have access to LabView and an ultrasound research lab, I use Verasonics hardware rather than Ultrasonix. And though I applaud @dzhoshkun sharing your work in a Github repository, I don't think this is the appropriate Journal since it relies on closed-source hardware and software tools.

[FaustinCarter]

From a closer look at their code, I don't think anyone actually needs LabVIEW to test it. Their API is accessible from LabVIEW, but it appears that it could be tested with any language that can call methods exposed in a DLL. That loosens the requirements for review slightly to someone who has access to the Sonix SDK, C++ compiler, and knows how to build a library and call functions from a DLL.

From the guidelines:

submissions that rely upon a proprietary/closed source language or development environment are acceptable provided that they meet the other submission requirements and that you, the reviewer, are able to install the software & verify the functionality of the submission

So basically (in my opinion) it shouldn't be rejected, but the authors may need to come to peace with the fact that finding a reviewer could take a very long time.

[labarba]

👋 @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman — Have you made a determination whether this submission can be reviewed?

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@labarba I have been unable to find reviewers for this submission. Perhaps we are forced to reject this submission at the moment as it appears too challenging to find reviewers at this point.

[labarba]

@dzhoshkun — Thank you for submitting your software to JOSS. Unfortunately, we haven’t been able to secure reviewers for your submission, which we (the editors) link to a software’s probability of being useful to others. In this case, a reliance on a particular brand of ultrasound device (apparently discontinued) combined with a LabView-focused solution, make the software difficult to review. It also means it’s probably of narrow use, which puts it somewhat on the fringe of scope for JOSS. At this point, I recommend withdrawing the paper. Cc. @openjournals/joss-eics

[dzhoshkun]

Thank you @labarba @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman and everyone for all your efforts. Much appreciated. It proved to be really difficult to find reviewers for this work, which has raised admittedly valid concerns about how useful the software is to the community. So I agree that withdrawing this paper is the best course of action at this stage.

[dzhoshkun]

@whedon commands

[whedon]

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