[REVIEW]: Larq: An Open-Source Library for Training Binarized Neural Networks

whedon commented 5 years ago

Submitting author: @lgeiger (Lukas Geiger) Repository: https://github.com/larq/larq Version: v0.8.3 Editor: @terrytangyuan Reviewer: @sbrugman, @casperdcl, @EduPH Archive: 10.6084/m9.figshare.11619912.v1

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e6e33c0ae63dfb26089754a264a55e59"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e6e33c0ae63dfb26089754a264a55e59/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e6e33c0ae63dfb26089754a264a55e59/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e6e33c0ae63dfb26089754a264a55e59)

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

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

Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
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 @sbrugman

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

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] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@lgeiger) 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 functionality 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] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[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] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

Review checklist for @casperdcl

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

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] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@lgeiger) 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 functionality 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] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[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] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

Review checklist for @EduPH

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

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] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@lgeiger) 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 functionality 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] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[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] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

lgeiger commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

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

lgeiger commented 4 years ago

@whedon check references

whedon commented 4 years ago

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-030-01267-0_44 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-46493-0_32 is OK
- 10.1038/323533a0 is OK
- 10.1109/CVPR.2019.00506 is OK
- 10.1109/CVPR.2019.00050 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e612900 may be missing for title: Keras

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon commented 4 years ago

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-030-01267-0_44 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-46493-0_32 is OK
- 10.1038/323533a0 is OK
- 10.1109/CVPR.2019.00506 is OK
- 10.1109/CVPR.2019.00050 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e612900 may be missing for title: Keras

INVALID DOIs

- None

terrytangyuan commented 4 years ago

Thanks!

At this point could you make a new release of this software that includes the changes that have resulted from this review. Then, please make an archive of the software in Zenodo/figshare/other service and update this thread with the DOI of the archive? For the Zenodo/figshare archive, please make sure that:

The title of the archive is the same as the JOSS paper title
That the authors of the archive are the same as the JOSS paper authors I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

lgeiger commented 4 years ago

Great! I published larq@v0.8.3 with the changes from this review and uploaded it to figshare: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.11619912.v1

terrytangyuan commented 4 years ago

@whedon set v0.8.3 as version

whedon commented 4 years ago

OK. v0.8.3 is the version.

terrytangyuan commented 4 years ago

@whedon set 10.6084/m9.figshare.11619912.v1 as archive

whedon commented 4 years ago

OK. 10.6084/m9.figshare.11619912.v1 is the archive.

terrytangyuan commented 4 years ago

@whedon accept

whedon commented 4 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon commented 4 years ago

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-030-01267-0_44 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-46493-0_32 is OK
- 10.1038/323533a0 is OK
- 10.1109/CVPR.2019.00506 is OK
- 10.1109/CVPR.2019.00050 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e612900 may be missing for title: Keras

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon commented 4 years ago

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1221

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1221, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

terrytangyuan commented 4 years ago

@openjournals/joss-eics This paper looks good to me now. Could you take it from here?

kyleniemeyer commented 4 years ago

Hi @lgeiger, I'm doing some final checks on the article before publishing.

It looks like the Zhang 2019 reference is missing some details—I just see the authors, year, and title. Where/how was this published?

lgeiger commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

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

lgeiger commented 4 years ago

It looks like the Zhang 2019 reference is missing some details—I just see the authors, year, and title. Where/how was this published?

@kyleniemeyer Good catch. I used the BibTeX entry mentioned in their GitHub repo which was missing the details. I switched to citing the article published at ACM now.

kyleniemeyer commented 4 years ago

@whedon accept

whedon commented 4 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon commented 4 years ago

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/3343031.3350534 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-01267-0_44 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-46493-0_32 is OK
- 10.1038/323533a0 is OK
- 10.1109/CVPR.2019.00506 is OK
- 10.1109/CVPR.2019.00050 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e612900 may be missing for title: Keras

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon commented 4 years ago

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1224

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1224, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

kyleniemeyer commented 4 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon commented 4 years ago

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

whedon commented 4 years ago

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

whedon commented 4 years ago

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

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1225
Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01746
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

kyleniemeyer commented 4 years ago

Congrats @lgeiger on your article's publication in JOSS!

Many thanks to @sbrugman, @casperdcl, and @EduPH for reviewing this submission, and @terrytangyuan for editing.

kyleniemeyer commented 4 years ago

(keeping this open as the PDF is not yet displaying)

lgeiger commented 4 years ago

That's great! Many thanks to @sbrugman, @casperdcl, @EduPH, and @terrytangyuan for the great review process.

arfon commented 4 years ago

(keeping this open as the PDF is not yet displaying)

Looks like the PDF is rendering now.

whedon commented 4 years ago

: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.01746/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01746)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01746">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01746/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01746/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01746

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

openjournals / joss-reviews