[REVIEW]: SHED: Streaming Heterogeneous Event Data Tracking with Provenance

whedon commented 3 years ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@CJ-Wright@arfon<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @remram44, @Midnighter Archive: Pending

: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:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/89f9042e51bad3e80b14e88d0fdadc73"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/89f9042e51bad3e80b14e88d0fdadc73/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/89f9042e51bad3e80b14e88d0fdadc73/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/89f9042e51bad3e80b14e88d0fdadc73)

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

@remram44, 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 @arfon 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 @remram44

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 (@CJ-Wright) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

Functionality

[x] 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: Do the authors clearly state 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.
[x] 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)?
[x] 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

[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: 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?
[ ] 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?

Midnighter commented 2 years ago

I also want to apologize to the authors for the long wait on my review. My schedule was completely turned around from when I agreed to review until I actually planned to do the review initially.

arfon commented 2 years ago

I also want to apologize to the authors for the long wait on my review. My schedule was completely turned around from when I agreed to review until I actually planned to do the review initially.

Better late than never @Midnighter! Thanks so much for getting to this.

@sbillinge @CJ-Wright – looks like there's some additional feedback from @Midnighter here. Can you take a look and let us know your response? Many thanks!

arfon commented 2 years ago

@sbillinge @CJ-Wright – looks like there's some additional feedback from @Midnighter here. Can you take a look and let us know your response? Many thanks!

Friendly bump here @sbillinge @CJ-Wright!

arfon commented 1 year ago

@sbillinge @CJ-Wright – it's now more than six months since we've heard from you. If we don't hear back from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you're no-longer interested in publishing this paper and reject the submission.

sbillinge commented 1 year ago

Dear Arfon,

So sorry about this. I know the reviewers have put in a lot of work on this so I am embarrassed, but actually, since CJ left for his job in fintech, no-one has been maintaining this code base. My new students have not taken it over and so we are not in a position to make the changes and updates, and it is probably fair to say that the package is no longer being maintained and so it actually doesn't make sense to publish it anymore, unless someone else decides to pick it up. I was hoping to persuade my current students to take it on and move it forward, which is why I didn't send this email earlier, but they rather developed another parallel package instead, so I think that, at least for the time being, SHED is dead and we can withdraw the JOSS submission. Again, I want to say I am really sorry because of the effort put in by the reviewers (which would have been really helpful if we had been able to respond).

Well, sorry it is not better news, and again, my apologies.

S

On Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 7:53 AM Arfon Smith @.***> wrote:

@sbillinge https://github.com/sbillinge @CJ-Wright https://github.com/CJ-Wright – it's now more than six months since we've heard from you. If we don't hear back from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you're no-longer interested in publishing this paper and reject the submission.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/3119#issuecomment-1264340375, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABAOWUKCOICQ5HBYKXON4FLWBAQ47ANCNFSM4ZKDLD5A . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

-- Simon Billinge Professor, Columbia University Physicist, Brookhaven National Laboratory

arfon commented 1 year ago

OK thanks for letting us know @sbillinge.

Thanks for your efforts here @remram44, @Midnighter – apologies this submission didn't work out.

arfon commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot withdraw

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Paper withdrawn.

openjournals / joss-reviews