[REVIEW]: WordTokenizers.jl: Basic tools for tokenizing natural language in Julia

whedon commented 4 years ago

Submitting author: @oxinabox (Lyndon White) Repository: https://github.com/JuliaText/WordTokenizers.jl/ Version: v0.5.4 Editor: @will-rowe Reviewer: @leios, @ninjin Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3663390

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/883b18d3c1cfbf8a5b2b53acb1f5ab81"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/883b18d3c1cfbf8a5b2b53acb1f5ab81/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/883b18d3c1cfbf8a5b2b53acb1f5ab81/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/883b18d3c1cfbf8a5b2b53acb1f5ab81)

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

@leios & @ninjin, 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 @will-rowe know.

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

Review checklist for @leios

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 (@oxinabox) 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 @ninjin

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 (@oxinabox) 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?

kthyng commented 4 years ago

@oxinabox Is the metadata updated when you look at it online? It still isn't for me. Maybe this will help? https://github.com/geodynamics/best_practices/blob/master/ZenodoBestPractices.md

oxinabox commented 4 years ago

Ok, not sure what is going on with Zenodo, but i cut a new release on github and that one editted fine.

10.5281/zenodo.3663390

kthyng commented 4 years ago

Ok great!

kthyng commented 4 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3663390 as archive

whedon commented 4 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3663390 is the archive.

kthyng 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

- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33016843 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon commented 4 years ago

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1322

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1322, 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 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/1323
Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01956
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

kthyng commented 4 years ago

@openjournals/dev There is something wrong with the paper DOI. This seems to keep happening to me. How can I prevent it/watch for it in the future?

kyleniemeyer commented 4 years ago

@kthyng the DOI resolves for me, so it may just be a caching issue with your browser? Though sometimes it does take a few minutes or longer for it to initially resolve, which is a Crossref issue, I think.

arfon commented 4 years ago

@openjournals/dev There is something wrong with the paper DOI. This seems to keep happening to me. How can I prevent it/watch for it in the future?

It takes a few mins for the DOI to register, plus sometimes, the DOI resolves before the GitHub Pages build is ready (so the PDF doesn't render).

Basically I recommend waiting a few mins before clicking the DOI link, and when rechecking, it sometimes helps to (re)try in incognito/private mode too to help your browser avoid caching issues.

danielskatz commented 4 years ago

Sometimes I retry from a different network (e.g., phone vs wifi), since the caching seems to happen in the specific network somewhere.

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.01956/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01956)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01956">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01956/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01956/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01956

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

kthyng commented 4 years ago

@arfon @kyleniemeyer Sorry about the unwarranted alert! When I checked, it was showing up as the orange-ish not-working page, which in the past had meant a different problem, rather than the blue-ish the-DOI-just-hasn't-resolved-yet page.

kthyng commented 4 years ago

A belated congratulations to @oxinabox on your new paper! Thanks to @will-rowe for editing and to reviewers @leios and @ninjin — we really appreciate your time and expertise!

openjournals / joss-reviews