Closed whedon closed 4 years ago
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @AKuederle, @ejhigson 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
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- None
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611972757.50 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1145/2448196.2448199 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1145/2822013.2822039 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1109/tnsre.2013.2291907 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.3390/s16010066 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.23919/eusipco.2017.8081163 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1109/tnsre.2019.2907483 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1145/956750.956777 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012088469-8.50069-3 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1081870.1081966 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1109/tnsre.2013.2260561 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1109/hic.2016.7797709 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211466 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
@whedon commands
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
EDITORIAL TASKS
# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf
# Compile the paper from alternative branch
@whedon generate pdf from branch custom-branch-name
# Ask Whedon to check the references for missing DOIs
@whedon check references
# Ask Whedon to check repository statistics for the submitted software
@whedon check repository
@whedon check references
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- 10.1137/1.9781611972757.50 is OK
- 10.1145/2448196.2448199 is OK
- 10.1145/2822013.2822039 is OK
- 10.1109/tnsre.2013.2291907 is OK
- 10.3390/s16010066 is OK
- 10.23919/eusipco.2017.8081163 is OK
- 10.1109/tnsre.2019.2907483 is OK
- 10.1145/956750.956777 is OK
- 10.1016/b978-012088469-8.50069-3 is OK
- 10.1145/1081870.1081966 is OK
- 10.1109/tnsre.2013.2260561 is OK
- 10.1109/hic.2016.7797709 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0211466 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
@whedon generate pdf
Hi folks just checking on the review.
@ejhigson do you have any updates on the review here? I know these are complicated times and your contribution and time are appreciated.
@trallard I plan to take a look at this in the next week!
@cadop congrations on a nice software package and paper! I have installed it and successfully run the tests and examples, as well as reviewing the documentation and paper. I only have a few minor questions:
1) I see the minimum versions for the dependencies in setup.py
are different to those which are listed in the documentation - should this be updated?
2) I get an error running the code in the README as I think you need to change seg1d.segmentData
to seg1d.segment_data
(as in the documentation).
3) I see that there are three authors on the paper, but that you appear to be the only code contributor to the github module. Please can you confirm the role of the other two authors in the software package, and that they meet the JOSS authorship guidelines?
To provide a summary of my feedback:
First of all, the package is very well written and documented. It fullfils the purpose, which is very well outlined in the paper, nicely and thanks to the examples it should be easy to get it running on a new dataset.
From a scientific perspective, this package mainly wraps a template matching approach based on cross correlation with a subsequent clustering with a nice interface. While, in particular the template matching part could be considered a very common approach to my (and the authors) knowledge, there is no simple implementation out there. Therefore, a nice implementation with any easy-to-use interface is definitely valuable.
However, I during the review, I had a couple of concerns regarding the overall amount of content in the software package:
seg1d
suggests that this is a package that implements a set of possible ways to segment a time series, but it just implements a single method.Besides the points above, I would fully recommend the package for publication. It is a nice piece of software with a clear usecase.
@ejhigson Thank you for pointing out the readme error! The commits below correspond to your items.
1) https://github.com/cadop/seg1d/commit/dc007ac4115de3df8e555278d322b33f1f41fafc https://github.com/cadop/seg1d/commit/efe73589648c21f4b1e1fa4c309ae77cd87e746d
2) https://github.com/cadop/seg1d/commit/d01632e3d497aa098b1a31b09e3d7abf2e65da45
Hi @cadop - thank you very much for these changes, everything looks good to me! I am now happy to recommend the paper for publication in JOSS. Congratulations on a nice software package!
@ejhigson Thank you very much!
@AKuederle Thank you for the in-depth review and time you spent on considering the package for the community. Please let me know if we need to continue some of the issue discussions as I have left them for you to close in your perspective. As for the points you raise, I think its overall a fair assessment. For some clarity, the package name is similar to mwarp1d
due to an initial goal of combining them in a sort of ecosystem.
@trallard I am not sure you received the notification, but you were tagged in this issue https://github.com/cadop/seg1d/issues/1 and I believe it is just waiting for you to close it.
Please let me know if there are any more steps/actions needed by me.
@trallard It seems that the issue I mentioned above is the only thing left in the checks and it requires your sign-off. Please let me know if there is something waiting on me otherwise.
Hi @kthyng , Since you helped in pre-review, I was wondering if you could help move this along. I assume COVID has been taking up peoples time.
Apologies for the delay @cadop I will jump into the issue and will make sure to speed this review on my end
@whedon check references
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- 10.1137/1.9781611972757.50 is OK
- 10.1145/2448196.2448199 is OK
- 10.1145/2822013.2822039 is OK
- 10.1109/tnsre.2013.2291907 is OK
- 10.3390/s16010066 is OK
- 10.23919/eusipco.2017.8081163 is OK
- 10.1109/tnsre.2019.2907483 is OK
- 10.1145/956750.956777 is OK
- 10.1016/b978-012088469-8.50069-3 is OK
- 10.1145/1081870.1081966 is OK
- 10.1109/tnsre.2013.2260561 is OK
- 10.1109/hic.2016.7797709 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0211466 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
@whedon generate pdf
@cadop I have created a PR to make some minor edits to the paper for acceptance.
@AKuederle if you're happy with the authoring resolution can you complete your checklist, please?
@trallard done :)
@AKuederle and @ejhigson thank you very much for your contribution as reviewers for JOSS. Your time and contributions are much appreciated 🙌🏼
@cadop since both reviewers have completed their duties and not flagged any major issues we are ready to move forward.
At this point could you:
I can then move forward with accepting the submission.
@trallard Thanks for moving all these things along.
I made a release of the software https://github.com/cadop/seg1d/releases/tag/v0.1.2
and made a zenodo upload: https://zenodo.org/record/3979649#.XzLab55KiUk
DOI 10.5281/zenodo.3979649
Is this all correct?
Thanks
@AKuederle @ejhigson Thank you for the helpful feedback and improvements!
@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3979649 as archive
OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3979649 is the archive.
@whedon set v0.1.2 as version
OK. v0.1.2 is the version.
@whedon accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- 10.1137/1.9781611972757.50 is OK
- 10.1145/2448196.2448199 is OK
- 10.1145/2822013.2822039 is OK
- 10.1109/tnsre.2013.2291907 is OK
- 10.3390/s16010066 is OK
- 10.23919/eusipco.2017.8081163 is OK
- 10.1109/tnsre.2019.2907483 is OK
- 10.1145/956750.956777 is OK
- 10.1016/b978-012088469-8.50069-3 is OK
- 10.1145/1081870.1081966 is OK
- 10.1109/tnsre.2013.2260561 is OK
- 10.1109/hic.2016.7797709 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0211466 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
:wave: @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.
Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1644
If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1644, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true
e.g.
@whedon accept deposit=true
@cadop Thanks all seems in order. I have proceeded and completed my editorial duties. The Editor in Chief will take from here for acceptance.
Thanks everyone for your patience in these busy times and your contribution is much appreciated.
Thank you @trallard
:wave: Hey @cadop...
Letting you know, @trallard
is currently OOO until Wednesday, September 2nd 2020. :heart:
@whedon accept deposit=true
Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...
🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦
🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨
Here's what you must now do:
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘
Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...
@AKuederle, @ejhigson - many thanks for your reviews here and to @trallard for editing ✨
@cadop - your paper is now accepted into JOSS :zap::rocket::boom:
Finally, it seems like the Crossref DOI registration service is down right now. I'll leave this issue open until https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02404 resolves.
:wave: Hey @arfon...
Letting you know, @trallard
is currently OOO until Wednesday, September 2nd 2020. :heart:
: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.02404/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02404)
HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02404">
<img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02404/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>
reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02404/status.svg
:target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02404
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:
Submitting author: @cadop (Mathew Schwartz) Repository: https://github.com/cadop/seg1d Version: v0.1.2 Editor: @trallard Reviewer: @AKuederle, @ejhigson Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3979649
: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
@AKuederle & @ejhigson, 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 @trallard know.
✨ Please try and complete your review in the next six weeks ✨
Review checklist for @AKuederle
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
Review checklist for @ejhigson
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper