search

openjournals / joss-reviews

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

[REVIEW]: TRUNAJOD: A text complexity library to enhance natural language processing #3153

Closed whedon closed 3 years ago

whedon commented 3 years ago

Submitting author: @dpalmasan (Diego Palma) Repository: https://github.com/dpalmasan/TRUNAJOD2.0 Version: v0.1.2 Editor: @danielskatz Reviewer: @mbdemoraes, @apiad Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.4707403

: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/92d7b9ed329d0b30cfad311c045fb1d5"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/92d7b9ed329d0b30cfad311c045fb1d5/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/92d7b9ed329d0b30cfad311c045fb1d5/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/92d7b9ed329d0b30cfad311c045fb1d5)

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

@mbdemoraes & @apiad, 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 @danielskatz 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 @mbdemoraes

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @apiad

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. @mbdemoraes, @apiad 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 
Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=1.47 s (39.4 files/s, 8339.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          26            596           1160           9646
Markdown                         3             82              0            270
TeX                              7             14              0            171
YAML                             4              5             10             73
reStructuredText                13             46             56             57
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
TOML                             1              1              0             22
INI                              2              2              0             21
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            58            758           1234          10295
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statistical information for the repository '76f6d2c6eb33101c71282a2e' was
gathered on 2021/04/06.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Bruce Lee                        2           189             30            0.57
Diego                            3          8579           8385           44.14
Diego Palma Sánchez              1           805              0            2.09
dpalma                           1           774              0            2.01
dpalmasan                       35         14568           5098           51.18

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
Bruce Lee                   153           81.0          0.2               14.38
Diego                      8576          100.0          0.1                0.02
dpalmasan                  2673           18.3         14.7               13.92
whedon commented 3 years ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1080/01638539809545029 may be a valid DOI for title: The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis
- 10.1080/00220973.1994.9943835 may be a valid DOI for title: Computer grading of student prose, using modern concepts and software
- 10.3758/s13428-015-0684-y may be a valid DOI for title: Spanish norms for affective and lexico-semantic variables for 1,400 words

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:

danielskatz commented 3 years ago

👋 @mbdemoraes and @apiad - Thanks for agreeing to review this submission. This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

Both reviewers have checklists at the top of this thread with the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

Please read the first couple of comments in this issue carefully, so that you can accept the invitation from JOSS and be able to check items, and so that you don't get overwhelmed with notifications from other activities in JOSS.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#3153 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if any of you require some more time. We can also use Whedon (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@danielskatz) if you have any questions/concerns.

danielskatz commented 3 years ago

👋 @dpalmasan, can you work on the possibly missing DOIs that whedon suggests, noting that some may be incorrect. Please feel free to make changes to your .bib file, then use the command @whedon check references to check again, and the command @whedon generate pdf when the references are right to make a new PDF. Whedon commands need to the be the first entry in a new comment.

dpalmasan 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:

dpalmasan 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

- 10.1080/01638539809545029 is OK
- 10.1080/00220973.1994.9943835 is OK
- 10.3758/s13428-015-0684-y is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
dpalmasan 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:

mbdemoraes commented 3 years ago

@dpalmasan great job so far! I believe these should be the last issues:

dpalmasan 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:

mbdemoraes commented 3 years ago

@danielskatz My review has been completed.

danielskatz commented 3 years ago

@mbdemoraes - just to confirm, you are now satisfied that this work can be published?

danielskatz commented 3 years ago

👋 @apiad - there's no hurry, but how are things coming for you?

mbdemoraes commented 3 years ago

@danielskatz Sure! I'm ready to approve it.

apiad commented 3 years ago

👋 @apiad - there's no hurry, but how are things coming for you?

I'm pretty confident I'll get it done during the weekend. The work seems pretty solid. I just have to download and check the functional claims but other than that I'm quite convinced it's gonna be a smooth review.

apiad commented 3 years ago

Sorry, clicked a button by accident...

apiad commented 3 years ago

@dpalmasan I just checked all the functional claims and documentation. I opened a (hopefully easy) issue to improve the contribution guidelines just a little bit.

I'm now reviewing the paper itself, and I have some suggestions. I'll finish reviewing it and open a single issue with all of them. Most of them are gonna are optional suggestions that I think can improve the quality of the writing, nothing too complex, mostly rewriting some long sentences and clarifying some points. I hope these suggestions help!

Great work, BTW. I already said it elsewhere but as a Spanish-speaker NLP researcher, I'm very happy to see this kind of high-quality work in our native language.

apiad commented 3 years ago

@danielskatz what's in your opinion the best UX for a writing/grammar review? Should I open an issue and just say "where you say ... in line X" or is there a better way to use the Github UI, maybe opening a PR with suggested changes, etc.?

What I would ideally prefer is to go over paper.md and just add comments on specific lines, so the PR workflow seems perfect for this, but to open a PR I have to propose some changes and then add comments on the PR. Is there a better/suggested way? Thanks in advance.

danielskatz commented 3 years ago

@apiad - feel free to do whichever seems best to you. As an Associate Editor in Chief, I do a lot of proofreading, and generally use PRs, but that's just me

whedon commented 3 years ago

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

apiad commented 3 years ago

Hey @dpalmasan, just submitted a small PR with what I think could be minor fixes to the paper. Please forgive me for taking the freedom to directly suggest text changes, but I think is easier/faster than listing them here. Let me know if you wish to review anything, and of course, as the author, you have the final word on your paper. Hope my suggestions help a bit :smile:!

dpalmasan commented 3 years ago

No worries! It was actually a great idea. I already took the suggestions into account and updated some missing bits (the ones that were tagged as <NAME>. Thanks for the detailed review!

apiad commented 3 years ago

Awesome! Perfect then, @danielskatz this officially completes my review.

I'm extremely satisfied with the work and I sincerely think it's a great addition to the NLP community. Thanks, @dpalmasan again for your quick responses, and please extend my congratulations to your colleagues on such solid work.

danielskatz commented 3 years ago

👋 @dpalmasan - I've suggested a bunch of small changes to the paper and bib in https://github.com/dpalmasan/TRUNAJOD2.0/pull/57

danielskatz commented 3 years ago

The next step is for you to:

I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

dpalmasan commented 3 years ago

Hello @danielskatz, I already merged your changes, thanks! Here are the items of the checklist:

Please let me know if further changes are needed

danielskatz commented 3 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.4707403 as archive

whedon commented 3 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.4707403 is the archive.

danielskatz commented 3 years ago

@whedon set v0.1.2 as version

whedon commented 3 years ago

OK. v0.1.2 is the version.

danielskatz commented 3 years ago

@whedon accept

whedon commented 3 years ago 
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
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/2255

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/2255, 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

@whedon check references

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1080/01638539809545029 is OK
- 10.1080/00220973.1994.9943835 is OK
- 10.3758/s13428-015-0684-y is OK
- 10.3758/s13428-018-1142-4 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
danielskatz commented 3 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon commented 3 years ago 
Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...
whedon commented 3 years ago

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

whedon commented 3 years ago

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

  1. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/2256
  2. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03153
  3. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.

  4. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

    Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

danielskatz commented 3 years ago

Congratulations to @dpalmasan (Diego Palma) and co-authors on your publication!!

And thanks to @mbdemoraes and @apiad for reviewing!

As the editor, this was a very quick and smooth process that worked well as everyone was quite collaborative and responsive - thank again to all of you!!

whedon commented 3 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.03153/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03153)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03153">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03153/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03153/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03153

This is how it will look in your documentation:

DOI

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: