[REVIEW]: Finnish Media Scrapers

whedon commented 3 years ago

Submitting author: @jiemakel (Eetu Mäkelä) Repository: https://github.com/hsci-r/finnish-media-scrapers Version: v1.1.1 Editor: @ajstewartlang Reviewers: @sara-shiho, @GaurangTandon Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5796453

: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/0bdd0f947b2d986b4acc4b9b6737dde8"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0bdd0f947b2d986b4acc4b9b6737dde8/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0bdd0f947b2d986b4acc4b9b6737dde8/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0bdd0f947b2d986b4acc4b9b6737dde8)

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

@sara-shiho & @pmyteh, 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 @ajstewartlang 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 @sara-shiho

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 (@jiemakel) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
- Author @jiemakel has made 77 commits, 39,314 ++ lines, 6,319 -- deletions.
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
- There are two authors with contributions over at least six months.
- There are 1,263 lines of code.
- According to the JOSS draft, this package has been used by two other projects (what are these projects?)

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
- Check these:
- [x] Query YLE/HS/IL/IS APIs for matching articles using the scripts fms-query-{yle|hs|il|is}, which output all matching articles with links into CSVs.
- [x] Fetch the matching articles using fms-fetch-{hs|open}. These save the articles as HTML files in a specified directory.
- [x] Extract the plain text from the article HMTL using fms-html-to-text-{yle|svyle|hs|il|is}.
- [x] Optionally refilter the results using fms-post-filter.
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)
- There are no performance claims in the JOSS draft. See author's comment below on performance

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
- Problems being solved: "responds to research needs by providing easy-to-use tools for scraping Finnish media articles and extracting the article texts from the scraped HTML files."
- The target audience for this project is those in media research who need access to this data. The python package itself is "for the benefit of more computationally-savvy users" and the "Finish Computational Science community".
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
- These is an explicit list of dependencies in poetry.lock
- The necessary dependencies are installed with pip install
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
- [x] Members of Parliament Example:
- [x] Helsingin Sanomat
- [x] Yle
- [x] Iltalehti
- [x] Iltasanomat
- [x] fms-post-filter script
[x] 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?
- There are no automated tests due to the reliance on external APIs. Instead, any problems should show through logging. See author's explanation below.
[x] 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
- I don't think there are clear guidelines aside from the fact that anyone can open a GitHub Issue. EDIT: this has been updated in commit __. In short, all support/contributions can be through GitHub.

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?
- Yes, there is a section titled 'Statement of Need'
- The types of problems are: media research
- The target audience is: researchers, Finnish computational science community
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
- There are no named comparable packages, but the Statement of Need addresses the media research field which might use this package.
- EDIT: a Related work section has been added to the README.
[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?

Review checklist for @pmyteh

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

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: 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.
[ ] 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

[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?
[ ] 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?

Review checklist for @GaurangTandon

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 (@jiemakel) 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
- Several commits, useful project to academic community studying finnish media, over 1000 LOC of Python

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
- installed via pypi, installed easily
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
- --help works as expected
- fms-query-il is broken it seems, rest of the tools work (I ran this command: fms-query-{yle|hs|il|is} --from-date 2021-01-01 -q 'parliament' -l 10 -o results2.csv). I got a TypeError for -il.
- did not check the other three components yet
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)
- Software's primary bottleneck is not burdening remote servers, therefore, there is a limit on how fast they can be. Regardless, as I understand it, this is a Python script designed more for convenience rather than performance or scalability. Therefore, I see no need for extra efforts in this direction.

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
- A clear statement of need is given and target audience (Finnish HSRG) and problem statement (crawl Finnish media text) is given
- I think it is tradition to also compare one's work with other existing work in the field :-) It would be good to at least mention that no other existing software can possibly be repurposed to perform the same task with the same level of efficiency, as this project directly uses APIs and also extracts structured text, which other softwares will possibly not.
- There is a related work section in the README but I think a gist of it should still be mentioned in the paper.
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
- pip is used to install as an end user and poetry as a developer, both are pretty standard.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
- Many examples, also an example members_of_parliament folder is available.
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
- Simple flowchart plus explanatory statements are given.
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
- Added a comment about this below (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/3504#issuecomment-963320985)
[x] 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
- lead author's email is provided for contact

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?
- Summary is probably too short and vague. The first step in this project is keyword search but it's not mentioned in the summary. Perhaps a line or two can be added about "structured retrieval" as well. I would begin with something like "Finnish Media Scrapers is a package for retrieving articles in a structured form from Finnish Media websites. It allows flexible configuration in terms of start date/end date and/or keyword search." and then continue to explain what is meant by 1. retrieving articles 2. structured form 3. keywords 4. which media websites.
[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?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
- See comment in previous section
[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?

whedon commented 2 years ago

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

whedon commented 2 years ago

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

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/2844
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03504
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

arfon commented 2 years ago

@Sara-ShiHo, @GaurangTandon – many thanks for your reviews here and to @ajstewartlang for editing this submission! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you ✨

@jiemakel – your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS :zap::rocket::boom:

whedon commented 2 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.03504/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03504)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03504">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03504/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03504/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03504

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:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

UMTti commented 2 years ago

Thanks to all the reviewers and editors for your helpful comments in improving this project!

openjournals / joss-reviews