search

openjournals / joss-reviews

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

[REVIEW]: QComms QKD Software Toolkit #1119

Closed whedon closed 5 years ago

whedon commented 5 years ago

Submitting author: @richardcollins (Richard Collins) Repository: https://gitlab.com/QComms/cqptoolkit Version: 0.3 Editor: @brainstorm Reviewers: @arturgs Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3247364

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/f652455b21fbc39b784e86c765a64fe8"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/f652455b21fbc39b784e86c765a64fe8/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/f652455b21fbc39b784e86c765a64fe8/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/f652455b21fbc39b784e86c765a64fe8)

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

@arturgs, 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 @brainstorm know.

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

Review checklist for @arturgs

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Old review checklist for @ejdanderson - does not need to be completed, as reviewer was replaced by first reviewer.

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

whedon commented 5 years ago

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @ejdanderson it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper :tada:.

:star: Important :star:

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-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 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

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

ejdanderson commented 5 years ago

@whedon commands

whedon commented 5 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

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf
brainstorm commented 5 years ago

@ejdanderson You might want to have a look at https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html for some guidance on how to tick the boxes above, let me know if you have any doubts about the process. When in doubt, you can check other issues in this same issue tracker and see how different software reviews went, thanks again for your efforts!

brainstorm commented 5 years ago

:wave: @ejdanderson Let me know if you have any doubts on how to proceed :)

ejdanderson commented 5 years ago

Great thanks! I'll have time this weekend to review.

ejdanderson commented 5 years ago

@brainstorm There appears to be plenty of documentation, tests, and example programs to draw from for the software. Unfortunately, I imagine most people will be installing this via docker, which I was unable to do following the instructions (see Installation below).

Authorship:

Installation:

I have attempted to install this via the docker installation and was presented an error (even post typo fix) see issue 6.

Community guidelines:

It would be worthwhile to explicitly state how contributions, issues, and support can be made via the README. Either a separate contribution.md file (example) or a few lines in the README itself is recommended. I found the Coding.md file to be very informative, thank you for including this.

Software paper

brainstorm commented 5 years ago

@richardcollins, would you mind addressing the installation defects and authorship question pointed by @ejdanderson?

@ejdanderson, firstly thanks much for your review efforts so far! Regarding the community guidelines, I agree one could use what you point out and/or GitHub's builtin support for it. I do think that the "summary requirement" is already covered by the "Introduction" section in paper.md while I also agree that it should be hinted briefly on the README.md so that people exploring the repository can have a quick overview of the software repository.

brainstorm commented 5 years ago

Ping @richardcollins

richardcollins commented 5 years ago

Hello Roman, sorry for the delay, I've been on holiday. I will take a look at the comments asap.

Thankyou @ejdanderson for reviewing the project.

From: Roman Valls Guimera notifications@github.com Sent: 24 December 2018 06:25:59 To: openjournals/joss-reviews Cc: Richard Collins; Mention Subject: Re: [openjournals/joss-reviews] [REVIEW]: QComms QKD Software Toolkit (#1119)

@richardcollinshttps://github.com/richardcollins, would you mind addressing the installation defects and authorship question pointed by @ejdandersonhttps://github.com/ejdanderson?

@ejdandersonhttps://github.com/ejdanderson, firstly thanks much for your review efforts so far! Regarding the community guidelines, I agree one could use what you point out and/or GitHub's builtin support for ithttps://blog.github.com/2012-09-17-contributing-guidelines/. I do think that the "summary requirement" is already covered by the "Introduction" section in paper.md while I also agree that it should be hinted briefly on the README.md so that people exploring the repository can have a quick overview of the software repository.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/1119#issuecomment-449691962, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATRKb5Y5DY9EbVpr1E8-PN9WDSS5j18yks5u8HN3gaJpZM4ZHxnq.

richardcollins commented 5 years ago

@ejdanderson I've changed the heading in the paper to Summary. @brainstorm wrt the contributions, Djeylan and others have provided details on the algorithms and the technical aspects of QKD but havn't written code in this project - do I need to cite them in a different way?

brainstorm commented 5 years ago

@richardcollins According to the JOSS reviewer guidelines you, as the author, take the responsibility for authorship claims, so thanks for stating it here, that should suffice AFAICT.

@ejdanderson Feel free to carry on with the remaining items whenever you can.

Cheers!

ejdanderson commented 5 years ago

Thanks, I'll take a look this week.

brainstorm commented 5 years ago

@ejdanderson Let me know if you have any doubts regarding any of the review points, happy to help!

brainstorm commented 5 years ago

👋 @ejdanderson, sorry to bother you with this, if it's tricky to test/install that's also a valid feedback for the author :)

richardcollins commented 5 years ago

@ejdanderson, Sorry to bug you about this but are you able to spend some time on this? - I'm happy to answer questions. I need to report my publications in a progress report and this has been noted as stalled.

labarba commented 5 years ago

At this point, we're beset by a delinquent reviewer, and one possible course of action is to find a second reviewer who is willing to fast-track this submission.

@brainstorm — try to find someone willing to make such a contribution to JOSS. You'll need to manually edit the first post in this thread to add a new checklist for the reviewer. If they have already reviewed for JOSS, they will have permissions to tick off the items. If not, we'll have to add them as collaborator to the joss-reviews repo (which I think only @arfon can do).

brainstorm commented 5 years ago

I'm contacting two additional quantum computing researchers through a common contact, hopefully they'll be able and willing to review and fast-track this paper. Thanks for your patience @richardcollins and @labarba for the additional editorial pointers, this is the first case of many papers that a reviewer went missing for me.

brainstorm commented 5 years ago

Hello @arturgs, @brunojulia recommended you as a possible reviewer for this quantum key distribution paper, would you be interested in reviewing it? The process is fairly straightforward and semi-automated via GitHub:

https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Let me know if you are interested!

brainstorm commented 5 years ago

Hello @SwamyDev, I peeked at your https://github.com/SwamyDev/q_network QKD framework and thought that you could assist JOSS (Journal of Open Source Software) on reviewing this software:

https://gitlab.com/QComms/cqptoolkit

The review process is held via this issue and here on Github, please let us know if you are interested in reviewing this software publication.

danielskatz commented 5 years ago

👋 @brainstorm - what's happening here? It looks like this has been waiting for a new reviewer for about 6 weeks?

brainstorm commented 5 years ago

@whedon assign @arturgs as reviewer

whedon commented 5 years ago

OK, the reviewer is @arturgs

danielskatz commented 5 years ago

👋 @arfon, can you add @arturgs to the group so he can review?

I'm going to create a new set of review criteria/checkmarks for him above, in the first comment in this issue.

arfon commented 5 years ago

👋 @arfon, can you add @arturgs to the group so he can review?

Done. @arturgs you'll need to accept the invite at https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations before you'll be able to update the checklist above.

arfon commented 5 years ago

:wave: @arturgs - could you give us an update on the status of your review?

arturgs commented 5 years ago

@arfon - completed

brainstorm commented 5 years ago

@arturgs There's a few unchecked checkboxes above, but I'll take your word for it, thanks a lot for your review!

@richardcollins Could you please generate a Zenodo DOI so that we can archive and finally publish? Thanks for your patience, this has been a tough case to close! :)

richardcollins commented 5 years ago

Thankyou @arturgs for reviewing this. @brainstorm I've created an upload in zenodo with a DOI of 10.5281/zenodo.3247364 DOI

arturgs commented 5 years ago

Hi all, this was my first review. Just a comment: once finished, how to announce that the review is done?

brainstorm commented 5 years ago

@arturgs No worries, you did well. The only detail was making sure you went through all the checkboxes above and then just chiming in the comment that you have gone through those ;)

brainstorm commented 5 years ago

@whedon check references

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1080/09500340008244057 is OK
- 10.1364/OFC.2018.M2A.6 is OK
- 10.1109/JLT.2016.2646921 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
brainstorm 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:

richardcollins commented 5 years ago

looks good to me, thanks

brainstorm commented 5 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3247364 as archive

whedon commented 5 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3247364 is the archive.

brainstorm commented 5 years ago

@arfon Looks good to me, ready to ship, thanks everyone!

arfon commented 5 years ago

@whedon accept

whedon commented 5 years ago 
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
whedon commented 5 years ago 

OK DOIs

- 10.1080/09500340008244057 is OK
- 10.1364/OFC.2018.M2A.6 is OK
- 10.1109/JLT.2016.2646921 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
whedon commented 5 years ago

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/766

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/766, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true
arfon commented 5 years ago

@richardcollins - there looks to be an empty section in your paper without any content:

# Approach

If this is the actual heading, then the headings following it need to use smaller headings (e.g. ## Components vs # Components, ### Statistics vs ## Statistics).

Also, this section is superfluous as we link to the software from the paper metadata in the left-hand margin:

# Access to the code
The code can be found [on GitLab](https://gitlab.com/QComms/cqptoolkit.git)
richardcollins commented 5 years ago

@arfon Sorry about that - not sure how I missed that. I've updated the paper.md to remove those sections. Do I need to update the zenodo version with this new version?

arfon commented 5 years ago

@whedon generate pdf