[REVIEW]: ASCENDS: Advanced data SCiENce toolkit for Non-Data Scientists

[whedon]

Submitting author: @ornlpmcp (Sangkeun Lee) Repository: https://github.com/ornlpmcp/ASCENDS Version: 0.4.1 Editor: @terrytangyuan Reviewer: @zhampel, @jrbourbeau Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3635782

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f3d4ec2c49f2c40b5fe1f24c61556ba0"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f3d4ec2c49f2c40b5fe1f24c61556ba0/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f3d4ec2c49f2c40b5fe1f24c61556ba0/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f3d4ec2c49f2c40b5fe1f24c61556ba0)

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

@zhampel & @jrbourbeau, 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.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @terrytangyuan know.

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

Review checklist for @zhampel

Conflict of interest

• [x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• [x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• [x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• [x] Version: 0.4.1
• [x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@ornlpmcp) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• [x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• [x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• [x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• [x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• [x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
• [x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

• [x] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @jrbourbeau

Conflict of interest

• [x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• [x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• [x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• [x] Version: 0.4.1
• [x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@ornlpmcp) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• [x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• [x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• [x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• [x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• [x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
• [x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

• [x] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

[kthyng]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

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

[kthyng]

Ok things are looking good.

[kthyng]

@whedon accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.actamat.2019.02.017 is OK
- 10.1080/14686996.2017.1371559 is OK
- 10.1002/adts.201800196 is OK
- 10.1136/bmj.e4483 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1309933111 is OK
- 10.1109/ICCV.2003.1238308 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1279

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1279, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

[kthyng]

@whedon accept deposit=true

[whedon]

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

[whedon]

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

[whedon]

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1280
1. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01656
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.

3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

   Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

[kthyng]

Congratulations @ornlpmcp on your new publication! Thanks to @terrytangyuan for editing, and to @zhampel and @jrbourbeau for reviewing — we really appreciate your time and expertise!

[whedon]

:tada::tada::tada: Congratulations on your paper acceptance! :tada::tada::tada:

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01656/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01656)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01656">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01656/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01656/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01656

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

• Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss