search

openjournals / joss-reviews

Reviews for the Journal of Open Source Software
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
714 stars 38 forks source link

[REVIEW]: gaussplotR: Fit, Predict and Plot 2D Gaussians in R #3074

Closed whedon closed 3 years ago

whedon commented 3 years ago

Submitting author: @vbaliga (Vikram B. Baliga) Repository: https://github.com/vbaliga/gaussplotR Version: v0.2.5 Editor: @KristinaRiemer Reviewer: @cddesja, @brunaw Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.4657750

: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

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/685673937faee896ddd4a48d825280cf"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/685673937faee896ddd4a48d825280cf/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/685673937faee896ddd4a48d825280cf/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/685673937faee896ddd4a48d825280cf)

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

@cddesja & @brunaw, 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 @KristinaRiemer know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Review checklist for @cddesja

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @brunaw

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

whedon commented 3 years ago

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @cddesja, @brunaw 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:

  1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

watching

  1. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

notifications

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
whedon commented 3 years ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1152/jn.1994.71.6.2517 is OK
- 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-13-05650.2003 is OK
- 10.1152/jn.00921.2005 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
whedon commented 3 years ago 
Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.17 s (392.9 files/s, 74226.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML                            21           1068            260           4534
R                               19            363            768           2192
Markdown                         7            191              0            791
CSS                              3             99             48            428
JavaScript                       3             64             32            256
JSON                             1              0              0            180
Rmd                              4            166            417            159
YAML                             4             27              2            137
TeX                              1              2              0             43
XML                              1              0              0             42
SVG                              1              0              1             11
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            65           1980           1528           8773
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statistical information for the repository '7a910df144f30d294c8e2399' was
gathered on 2021/03/01.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Vikram Baliga                    1           352              0          100.00

Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:

Author                     Rows      Stability          Age       % in comments
Vikram Baliga               352          100.0          0.0                9.09
whedon commented 3 years ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

brunaw commented 3 years ago

I'm done with my review, a few comments justifying what I missed in the package & suggestions are below:

Please let me know if any of this isn't clear or if I can improve my suggestions,

Bruna

KristinaRiemer commented 3 years ago

Thanks for the quick turnaround time on the review @brunaw! Your comments are useful, and I definitely agree with adding contribution information and fleshing out the use cases of the package in the paper. Hopefully @vbaliga will have a chance to address them soon!

cddesja commented 3 years ago

I will try to do my review this weekend or early next week.

On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 10:15 AM Kristina Riemer notifications@github.com wrote:

Thanks for the quick turnaround time on the review @brunaw https://github.com/brunaw! Your comments are useful, and I definitely agree with adding contribution information and fleshing out the use cases of the package in the paper. Hopefully @vbaliga https://github.com/vbaliga will have a chance to address them soon!

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/3074#issuecomment-791482876, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAMIZ24EVJB3OXLYPFMJJYTTCDYRFANCNFSM4YM66MVA .

vbaliga commented 3 years ago

Hi everyone - Thanks sincerely to @brunaw for your review. I am happy to incorporate your feedback. If it's OK, I'd like to hold off until @cddesja has a chance to submit his review too, so that he does not have to review a moving target.

Best regards, Vikram 🐢

cddesja commented 3 years ago

This is my first thing to do on Monday morning. Chris

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 4:15 PM Vikram Baliga @.***> wrote:

Hi everyone - Thanks sincerely to @brunaw https://github.com/brunaw for your review. I am happy to incorporate your feedback. If it's OK, I'd like to hold off until @cddesja https://github.com/cddesja has a chance to submit his review too, so that he does not have to review a moving target.

Best regards, Vikram 🐢

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/3074#issuecomment-797759683, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAMIZ22DI2FMRA2MH6DQTPDTDJY63ANCNFSM4YM66MVA .

cddesja commented 3 years ago

I have waited too long and now my invitation has expired. Can I get a new invitation so that I can work on this today?

On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 12:36 PM whedon @.***> wrote:

Submitting author: @vbaliga https://github.com/vbaliga (Vikram B. Baliga http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9367-8974) Repository: https://github.com/vbaliga/gaussplotR https://github.com/vbaliga/gaussplotR Version: v0.2.3 Editor: @KristinaRiemer https://github.com/KristinaRiemer Reviewer: @cddesja https://github.com/cddesja, @brunaw https://github.com/brunaw Archive: Pending

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

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 https://blog.joss.theoj.org/2020/05/reopening-joss. Status

[image: status] https://joss.theoj.org/papers/685673937faee896ddd4a48d825280cf

Status badge code:

HTML:

Markdown: status

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository https://github.com/vbaliga/gaussplotR 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

@cddesja https://github.com/cddesja & @brunaw https://github.com/brunaw, 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 @KristinaRiemer https://github.com/KristinaRiemer know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨ Review checklist for @cddesja https://github.com/cddesja Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

  • Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
  • Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
  • 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

  • A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
  • Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
  • Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
  • Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
  • 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

  • Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
  • Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
  • 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 https://rmarkdown.rstudio.com/authoring_bibliographies_and_citations.html#citation_syntax ?

Review checklist for @brunaw https://github.com/brunaw Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

  • Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
  • Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
  • 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

  • A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
  • Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
  • Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
  • Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
  • 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

  • Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
  • Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
  • 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 https://rmarkdown.rstudio.com/authoring_bibliographies_and_citations.html#citation_syntax ?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/3074, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAMIZ2ZVHSTLAYAHIRYNVGDTBPGCZANCNFSM4YM66MVA .

whedon commented 3 years ago

:wave: @brunaw, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

whedon commented 3 years ago

:wave: @cddesja, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

cddesja commented 3 years ago

I need a new invitation to complete the review and I can finish it.

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 1:37 PM whedon @.***> wrote:

👋 @cddesja https://github.com/cddesja, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/3074#issuecomment-799610932, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAMIZ235J7KDZJDVLY4HDKDTDZAT5ANCNFSM4YM66MVA .

danielskatz commented 3 years ago

@whedon re-invite @cddesja as reviewer

whedon commented 3 years ago

OK, the reviewer has been re-invited.

@cddesja please accept the invite by clicking this link: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

KristinaRiemer commented 3 years ago

Thanks for doing that @danielskatz! Let us know if that doesn't work @cddesja.

cddesja commented 3 years ago

I am done with my review as well.

Chris

brunaw commented 3 years ago

Hello @cddesja and @vbaliga,

After I posted my review, I was thinking about my comment about the R version. Indeed it's not "too much" to ask for R to be at least 4.0.0, because it's been a while that this version is available so maybe it's my obligation as the package user to update my R already.

So in summary, I think this is up to the authors to decide on. I would personally not request a certain R version if my package really didn't depend on it (to avoid issues like I had), but I also don't see any major issues with keeping the version request as it is 😊

cddesja commented 3 years ago

"I would personally not request a certain R version if my package really didn't depend on it (to avoided issues like I had)"

This is a good reason to not require 4.0. So, I think @brunaw you're right that this requirement should be removed.

vbaliga commented 3 years ago

Hi @brunaw and @cddesja,

Thanks sincerely to both of you for reviewing gaussplotR and providing feedback. I think you've both found ways to improve the package and the corresponding paper, and I am grateful for it. Here are my point-by-point replies:

@brunaw

* I couldn't straightforwardly install the package from either CRAN or GitHub because of the R version requirement (>= 4.0.0). I find this a high requirement given that this version (4.0.0) is not even 1 year old yet. I managed to install the package only by manually changing this requirement and no harm was done with that, so unless the authors really need this requirement I would suggest downgrading it.

I agree. Forcing users to have R >= 4.0.0 was too stringent a requirement and not necessary for the package's current functionality. I scanned through all of gaussplotR's dependencies and found that R >= 3.3.0 is a suitable requirement as rgl depends on it. Thanks for catching this!

* Just for aesthetics purposes, I suggest rounding the numbers when showing them in the summaries of the models.  Using 5 decimals for each value shown used quite a lot of space on my screen.

This was a great suggestion and one that motivated me to write custom print() and summary() methods for my fit_gaussian_2D() outputs. I have now simplified the printed output to be more clean and opted to round each parameter estimate to 2 decimal places.

* I found no explicit contribution guide, either in the webpage or GitHub repository of the package. This could be added at the end of the README in the GitHub repository.

Thanks. The reason this wasn't there before was because it doesn't seem to be a requirement for JOSS. But in any case, I agree with the merit of adding it and have placed a section within the README that provides this info. Thanks for the suggestion.

* About the paper:

  * Assuming the summary to be the main thing that people read, it certainly needs more details. There's just a short statement of what the package does with no 'clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse audience'. I suggest giving at least a quick explanation on 2D Gaussians, why we use them, what are a few examples of it, and why/how the package helps you fitting/plotting them.
  * The same goes for the statement of need, there's seem to be very little justification of why we need this package (I believe we do need it, but the justification for that is lacking), and what is already written seem to be quite generic.
  * References need to be fixed in the statement of need.
  * More references can be added, which will both help to improve the statement of need (by showing how 2D Gaussians have been used in the literature) and to improve the main summary itself.
  * Even though the authors state that there's no other package in the literature that automatically handles the fitting of 2D Gaussians, this package itself is based on functions from previous packages (from the `nls` package for instance, and classical 2D plotting functions). I suggest something is written about that and what are the advantages of using this package (besides being quicker & easier) than other such approaches.

Thanks for this as well. I have made several changes to the paper, particularly to the summary and statement of need, to give readers a clearer understanding of the basic problems and how gaussplotR can provide the tools to solve them. Thanks also for catching the typos re: references and for motivating me to find additional references to showcase the applicability of 2D-Gaussians.

@cddesja

A couple of references need to be fixed, line 14 and line 30.

Thanks for catching this. I believe I have now caught the errors in reference formatting.

The last sentence of the paper you may want to change the word "the" to "an"

I've opted to rephrase the last part of the sentence to give a couple more details.

As @brunaw stated there's no contribution guide.

Thanks -- as noted above, I have added a section to the README.

I do suspect there are some 2d Gaussian packages in R that could be cited as relevant, if not providing, similar functionality. A quick search finds package with similar names.

Thanks, I agree. I have added a citation to the imagefx package, given what imagefx::build.gaus() is capable of performing. I also note what stats::nls() can achieve, though it is not strictly limited to estimating parameters for 2D-Gaussians. Please let me know if you had any other packages in mind -- I have not found any others that are relevant.

I think it would be beneficial to list all the package requirements on your GitHub site.

With all due respect, I disagree. This is not a standard practice, and I have only seen it done on the rare occasion that a package has strict requirements (e.g. needing a java installation on the computer, only working on MacOS, etc). Moreover, the requirements for gaussplotR are pretty light; there are only four dependencies, two of which are very likely to already be on a user's machine. Please also note that following your & @brunaw's advice, I have relaxed the requirement of R >= 4.0.0, as I agree it is definitely not necessary. 

I really appreciate the way that the package allows for easy use with ggplot2 and lattice.

Thanks!

I am not sure that I agree with @brunaw about whether you need to change the R requirements to allow for R less than 4. While I totally agree with her rationale, I don't think it's necessarily your responsibility to make sure that the package is backwards compatible. However, if @brunaw feels strongly about this, then I think the request is more than reasonable.

As noted above, I am comfortable with relaxing this requirement. It was not necessary and I thank you @brunaw for catching it

Regarding @brunaw request about the statement of need and the summary section, would it be possible to walk the reader through an applied application of your package? For example, you reference an in-press paper, could you walk us through the problem you encountered and how your package helped to solve it in non-technical language?

I have made large revisions to the beginning of the paper. From the outset, I have added an explanation of how 2D-Gaussians are used in Priebe et al., 2003 in relatively non-technical language. I would prefer to not go into detail about our in-prep paper, though I will note that much of the analysis in it follow methods used by Priebe et al. So I am hoping that with the revisions I've made to the summary and statement of need, I have now made the motivation behind writing gaussplotR and how it is useful more clear to the reader. Does that sound ok?

Thanks again to both of you!

Best regards, Vikram 🐢

cddesja commented 3 years ago

@vbaliga, I am fine with your changes. Regarding

I think it would be beneficial to list all the package requirements on your GitHub site.

I was just basing this off the Installation Instruction checklist. I agree that your package has few requirements and If the user does want to see them they can visit: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/gaussplotR/index.html

brunaw commented 3 years ago

@vbaliga same for me, I couldn't spot anything else that needs change. I have updated my review tick boxes and I am happy to proceed with the acceptance of your paper.

vbaliga commented 3 years ago

@cddesja and @brunaw -- awesome, thanks very much!

vbaliga commented 3 years ago

Hi @KristinaRiemer, is there further action I need to take? Each of my reviewers has indicated they are satisfied with my changes & response to their reviews. I am sorry if I missed something

Thanks! Vikram 🐢

KristinaRiemer commented 3 years ago

This all looks good! Thanks @cddesja and @brunaw for your reviews! I'm going to check over the paper proof and then @vbaliga you'll have a couple of logistical things to take care of.

KristinaRiemer commented 3 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 3 years ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

KristinaRiemer commented 3 years ago

@whedon check references

whedon commented 3 years ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1152/jn.1994.71.6.2517 is OK
- 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-13-05650.2003 is OK
- 10.1152/jn.00921.2005 is OK
- 10.1109/EUROCON.2013.6625198 is OK
- 10.1109/ICACCI.2013.6637241 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.2528/pier97071100 may be a valid DOI for title: Electromagnetic scattering from a multilayered cylinder arbitrarily located in a Gaussian beam, a new recursive algorithms

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-8130(98)00084-1 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wavemoti.2003.12.012 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlastec.2018.07.049 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2020.101897 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
KristinaRiemer commented 3 years ago

Hi @vbaliga, the paper looks good except for a couple of smaller errors in the references. Some of the references have "https://doi.org/" listed twice when it should only occur once, and the Wu & Guo references is missing a DOI.

Once those are fixed, you should create a new tagged release of the repo and create an archive of the code (on Zenodo, institutional repo, etc.). Then if you could provide the new version number and the archive DOI here!

vbaliga commented 3 years ago

Hi @KristinaRiemer, thanks very much. I believe I have taken care of the DOI issues in the paper in the latest commits. I have now also:

Please let me know if there's anything else I should do - thanks again!

KristinaRiemer commented 3 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

KristinaRiemer commented 3 years ago

@whedon check references

whedon commented 3 years ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1152/jn.1994.71.6.2517 is OK
- 10.2528/pier97071100 is OK
- 10.1016/S0141-8130(98)00084-1 is OK
- 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-13-05650.2003 is OK
- 10.1016/j.wavemoti.2003.12.012 is OK
- 10.1152/jn.00921.2005 is OK
- 10.1109/EUROCON.2013.6625198 is OK
- 10.1109/ICACCI.2013.6637241 is OK
- 10.1016/j.optlastec.2018.07.049 is OK
- 10.1016/j.media.2020.101897 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
whedon commented 3 years ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

KristinaRiemer commented 3 years ago

Great, thanks for doing that @vbaliga! So we want the archived code to match the submission, so could you change the title on Zenodo to "gaussplotR: Fit, Predict and Plot 2D-Gaussians in R"?

vbaliga commented 3 years ago

@KristinaRiemer sure thing! I just pushed an update to Zenodo (v0.2.5, see: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4657750). The corresponding release on the github repo is available here: https://github.com/vbaliga/gaussplotR/releases/tag/v0.2.5

danielskatz commented 3 years ago

@KristinaRiemer - is this ready for you to recommend acceptance at this point?

KristinaRiemer commented 3 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.4657750 as archive

whedon commented 3 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.4657750 is the archive.

KristinaRiemer commented 3 years ago

@whedon set v0.2.5 as version

whedon commented 3 years ago

OK. v0.2.5 is the version.

KristinaRiemer commented 3 years ago

@whedon accept

whedon commented 3 years ago 
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
whedon commented 3 years ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1152/jn.1994.71.6.2517 is OK
- 10.2528/pier97071100 is OK
- 10.1016/S0141-8130(98)00084-1 is OK
- 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-13-05650.2003 is OK
- 10.1016/j.wavemoti.2003.12.012 is OK
- 10.1152/jn.00921.2005 is OK
- 10.1109/EUROCON.2013.6625198 is OK
- 10.1109/ICACCI.2013.6637241 is OK
- 10.1016/j.optlastec.2018.07.049 is OK
- 10.1016/j.media.2020.101897 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
whedon commented 3 years ago

: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/2197

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/2197, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true
danielskatz commented 3 years ago

👋 @vbaliga - there are two small changes in https://github.com/vbaliga/gaussplotR/pull/1 - if you can merge this, we should be able to proceed to publication.

danielskatz commented 3 years ago

@whedon accept

whedon commented 3 years ago 
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
whedon commented 3 years ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1152/jn.1994.71.6.2517 is OK
- 10.2528/pier97071100 is OK
- 10.1016/S0141-8130(98)00084-1 is OK
- 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-13-05650.2003 is OK
- 10.1016/j.wavemoti.2003.12.012 is OK
- 10.1152/jn.00921.2005 is OK
- 10.1109/EUROCON.2013.6625198 is OK
- 10.1109/ICACCI.2013.6637241 is OK
- 10.1016/j.optlastec.2018.07.049 is OK
- 10.1016/j.media.2020.101897 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None