Closed whedon closed 3 years ago
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @tomsing1 it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper :tada:.
:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:
Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.
: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:
For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
@whedon commands
For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
@whedon generate pdf
PDF failed to compile for issue #2402 with the following error:
/app/vendor/ruby-2.4.4/lib/ruby/2.4.0/psych.rb:377:in parse': (tmp/2402/paper.md): mapping values are not allowed in this context at line 2 column 17 (Psych::SyntaxError) from /app/vendor/ruby-2.4.4/lib/ruby/2.4.0/psych.rb:377:in
parse_stream'
from /app/vendor/ruby-2.4.4/lib/ruby/2.4.0/psych.rb:325:in parse' from /app/vendor/ruby-2.4.4/lib/ruby/2.4.0/psych.rb:252:in
load'
from /app/vendor/ruby-2.4.4/lib/ruby/2.4.0/psych.rb:473:in block in load_file' from /app/vendor/ruby-2.4.4/lib/ruby/2.4.0/psych.rb:472:in
open'
from /app/vendor/ruby-2.4.4/lib/ruby/2.4.0/psych.rb:472:in load_file' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-446a0298a33b/lib/whedon.rb:125:in
load_yaml'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-446a0298a33b/lib/whedon.rb:85:in initialize' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-446a0298a33b/lib/whedon/processor.rb:36:in
new'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-446a0298a33b/lib/whedon/processor.rb:36:in set_paper' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-446a0298a33b/bin/whedon:55:in
prepare'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/command.rb:27:in run' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/invocation.rb:126:in
invoke_command'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor.rb:387:in dispatch' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/base.rb:466:in
start'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-446a0298a33b/bin/whedon:119:in <top (required)>' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bin/whedon:23:in
load'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bin/whedon:23:in `
@anwarbio - your paper title needs quoting, i.e. change this:
title: Bioassays: a new package in R for analyzing cellular assays
to this:
title: "Bioassays: a new package in R for analyzing cellular assays"
in your paper.md
.
@arfon - The above change is made in the title
of paper.md
@whedon generate pdf
@whedon, @arfon
Few mistakes were in the article proof
, and is now corrected in paper.md
.
Details of the correction are
1)Line 25
1st paragraph last line: high-throughput is corrected as High-throughput
2) Line 27
2nd paragraph 3rd line: us is corrected as use
3) Line 29
3rd paragraph 1st line: server is corrected as serve
4) Line 39
7th paragraph 1st line: An extra convert is deleted.
Thanking you,
Anwar
I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:
@whedon commands
Thanks, @anwarbio.
@whedon remove homoneclocom as reviewer
OK, homoneclocom is no longer a reviewer
@whedon add @homonecloco as reviewer
OK, @homonecloco is now a reviewer
@fboehm I think I waited too long to accept the https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations invite. Would you mind refreshing it so I can edit the checklist? Many thanks!
@whedon re-invite @tomsing1 as reviewer
OK, the reviewer has been re-invited.
@tomsing1 please accept the invite by clicking this link: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations
Hi @anwarbio , I started the review with the documentation. I am still to read the paper, but I'll give you my comments of what I have reviewed so far, so you can consider them.
Hi @homonecloco
Thank you for reviewing the package and your suggestions are really helpful in improving the package. I have made the below changes in github files. Once all are happy with contents, then I can go for an update on CRAN with all changes.
The API documentation (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/bioassays/bioassays.pdf) has the beginning looking incomplete or misformated. The documentation of the actual functions seems ok, but having so many NA at the beginning of the document is not recommended. comment: I have now corrected this
The vignette with examples (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/bioassays/vignettes/bioassays-examples.html) refers to some files, like “L DIFF P3 72HRS.csv”. I couldn’t find that file in the repository. I appreciate that the examples may be included as part of the package, but for this particular document, having the actual file used can help the users to format their tables. comment: All the files used in the examples are now added in the exdata folder and is now mentioned in 'vignette with examples'
In some packages, the documentation is in html and in PDF. It would be useful to have the same option for the vignettes of this packages. The PDFs are hard to copy and paste. comment: The vignettes are in html format. Adding both html and pdf file might be difficult as the images of 'heatplate' appear in different dimensions in pdf and html. I might need separate rmd files for html and pdf, I doubt if CRAN will allow this.
Thanking you, Amwar
Hi @anwarbio , Thanks for making the updates so fast. Is there a way I can preview them? Specially I would like to see the NAs go away. In any case, I see you uploaded the file, and it is fine if you only have the html documentation. As long it is available in either format, in an easy to copy and paste (so you can test that the commands are working as expected), is fine. Best, Ricardo.
Hi @homonecloco , Thank you for the reply. I have made few more edits today to put each function in separate line (you can see them in the github). I do not know how to share the preview file, so I have shared you a screenshot showing the functions arranged neatly. Thanking you, Anwar
@tomsing1 and @homonecloco - I hope that your reviews are going well. Please feel free to complete the checklists when you're satisfied with the submission and to suggest revisions until you're satisfied. Please let me know how I might help.
@tomsing1 and @homonecloco - I see that @tomsing1 opened three issues in the package repository: https://github.com/anwarbio/bioassays
@anwarbio responded to the three issues - should we consider the issues closed? Or is more discussion needed?
Thanks again!
In general, I like the extensions to ggplot to display the plates. I can see this plots useful by themselves. It is nice to have some functions that force the structure of the data to the input of the plots, but I don’t think it is completely necessary for a user proficient in R.
There is a contradiction when comparing the software with DRfit. I would remove the comparison, as DRfit is designed to be user friendly. It may not scale well, but it is not designed for programmers. Also, in the last part of the summary, Bioassays claims to be customisable by anyone using R, which is equivalent to knowing Java to extend Drift.
The core text oversells the usability of the packages. It is indeed consistent with the user experience that you would get in R, but it is not as “user-friendly” as a graphical interfase. I would tone down the language. For example, the phrase "Since even the most naive computer users know how to change the names of files, this provides a very simple way to pass data of this type into the analysis.”, reads condescending.
In Acknowledgment, the frase "Support from lab members are acknolegment.” Has a spelling error, and it is not clear which lab members are acknloedege, or at least to which research group.
The contributions.md stats that there is continues integration in Travis, can you make the link more accessible, to be able to monitor if the current state of the code is running?
Hi @homonecloco,
Thank you for the comments. I have made correction as suggested. Details are given below.
In general, I like the extensions to ggplot to display the plates. I can see this plots useful by themselves. It is nice to have some functions that force the structure of the data to the input of the plots, but I don’t think it is completely necessary for a user proficient in R. Reply: Any multi-well plate data can be structured for the plots (function 'heatplate') by using functions 'data2plateformat', 'plate2df', 'matrix96' alone or in combinations (depending on the input data). I have included this as a new sentence in line 41
There is a contradiction when comparing the software with DRfit. I would remove the comparison, as DRfit is designed to be user friendly. It may not scale well, but it is not designed for programmers. Also, in the last part of the summary, Bioassays claims to be customisable by anyone using R, which is equivalent to knowing Java to extend Drift. Reply: In line 29 the sentence "They are also limited to the options provided by the software, unless a user is willing to write additional JAVA code, a skill not particularly common among cell biologists" is now removed.
The core text oversells the usability of the packages. It is indeed consistent with the user experience that you would get in R, but it is not as “user-friendly” as a graphical interfase. I would tone down the language. For example, the phrase "Since even the most naive computer users know how to change the names of files, this provides a very simple way to pass data of this type into the analysis.”, reads condescending. Reply: This sentence (line 37) is now modified as "This function provides a very easy way to pass data of this type into the analysis by simply editing file names." Another sentence in line 31 (Moreover, it is strongly documented in a manner designed to be easy for even beginners to grasp.) is modified as "Moreover, we have provided examples (bioassays-examples) in the vignettes, which will be very helpful for beginners to grasp how this package can be used."
In Acknowledgment, the frase "Support from lab members are acknolegment.” Has a spelling error, and it is not clear which lab members are acknloedege, or at least to which research group. Reply: The spelling mistake in acknowledgment is now corrected. Lab details are also provided (line 50).
The contributions.md stats that there is continues integration in Travis, can you make the link more accessible, to be able to monitor if the current state of the code is running? Reply: The link is now updated.
Thanking you, Anwar
@anwarbio thank you for the updates! @homonecloco and @tomsing1 - Thanks for your work with the reviews. If you find that you can't yet check some of the boxes in the checklist, please continue to suggest improvements. Please let me know if I can help with anything. Thanks again!!
@fboehm , can you produce the PDF again, so I can check the changes?
@whedon generate pdf
PDF failed to compile for issue #2402 with the following error:
pandoc-citeproc: reference homonecloco not found Error producing PDF. ! TeX capacity exceeded, sorry [input stack size=5000]. \reserved@a ->\def \reserved@a *{\let \@xs@assign \@xs@expand@and@detokenize... l.331 }
Looks like we failed to compile the PDF
@anwarbio - I failed to produce the pdf. It looks like there's a problem with pandoc-citeproc. By chance did you use the text "@homonecloco" somewhere in your document? If so, you might need to specify that you aren't intending to cite the key "homonecloco" in your text. You might be able to do this by preceding the at sign by two backslashes, but I could be mistaken on that.
I can fix the issue here folks, looks like Pandoc is getting confused with the reviewer handles and citations. Pls hold...
@whedon generate pdf
Thanks, @arfon !
@homonecloco and @tomsing1 - we have the updated pdf now. What are your feelings about it and the package in the current state? As you work through the last of the checklists, please feel free to continue offering suggestions for improvement as needed, and please do let me know how I can assist you. Thanks again!!
@homonecloco and @tomsing1 - I hope that your reviews are progressing well. Is there something that I can assist with right now? With help from Arfon, we've created the pdf. Do you feel that additional revisions are needed? Are there any checkboxes that need attention from @anwarbio ? Thanks again!!
@tomsing1 and @homonecloco - It seems that there hasn't been much activity on this review over the last couple of weeks. When you have a moment, would you see if you're comfortable with checking more of the boxes from the checklist? If you're not comfortable checking some boxes, we should be sure that @anwarbio is aware of your concerns. Thanks again!
Hi, I'm sorry for not commenting earlie. I'm mostly satisfied now. The only thing missing from the guideline is a community guideline on how to contribute to the project. A simple statement in the main readme should be enough.
Best, Ricardo.
Hi, @homonecloco Thank you very much. I have now added a paragraph on contribute in readme.
Kind regards, Anwar
@anwarbio , thanks for the prompt update. @fboehm , I can canfirm that, from my side, this project meets all the requirements in the guideline.
Hi @tomsing1 , Please let me know the concerns you may have. I am happy to consider them and make necessary modifications. Thanks, Anwar
Thanks, @homonecloco, for your review! @tomsing1 - how is your review progressing? Please let me know if I can assist with something. Thanks again!
Dear @fboehm and @anwarbio, I have now finished my review. (Thank you for your patience.) I suggested a few improvements in this pull request. I mainly corrected spelling or grammar mistakes in the vignettes and also added the .Rbuildignore
file. (I also found one last typo in the paper itself.) The manuscript now fulfills all of the requirements on the list. Good to go!
Dear @tomsing1 , Thank you very much for the corrections. I have now applied these changes. Thanks!
Thank you, @tomsing1 and @anwarbio !
@whedon generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@whedon check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1007/s10295-006-0086-3 is OK
- 10.1002/em.22014 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4939-2742-5_11 is OK
- 10.1016/j.bios.2015.05.018 is OK
- 10.1038/srep42383 is OK
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr664 is OK
- 10.1186/s12859-019-2891-5 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- NBK144065 is INVALID
@anwarbio - whedon suggests that NBK144065 is an invalid doi. Can you double-check this doi?
@fboehm - This is a eBook reference and do not have a doi. Reference is now corrected
Submitting author: @anwarbio (ANWAR PALAKKAN) Repository: https://github.com/anwarbio/bioassays Version: v1.0.1 Editor: @fboehm Reviewers: @tomsing1, @homonecloco Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.4075110
:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:
Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.
Status
Status badge code:
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
@tomsing1, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @fboehm know.
✨ Please try and complete your review in the next six weeks ✨
Review checklist for @tomsing1
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
The vignettes needed proofreading. I have suggested changes and submitted a pull request for the author to review. (I also included a few other minor suggestions in the pull request, which he might find useful.)
Review checklist for @homonecloco
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper