search

openjournals / joss-reviews

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

[REVIEW]: Phonemizer: Text to Phones Transcription for Multiple Languages in Python #3958

Closed whedon closed 2 years ago

whedon commented 2 years ago

Submitting author: @mmmaat (Bernard) Repository: https://github.com/bootphon/phonemizer Version: v3.0.1 Editor: @danielskatz Reviewer: @henrykironde, @chrisbrickhouse Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5791097

: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/08d1ffc14f233f56942f78f3742b266e"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/08d1ffc14f233f56942f78f3742b266e/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/08d1ffc14f233f56942f78f3742b266e/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/08d1ffc14f233f56942f78f3742b266e)

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

@henrykironde & @chrisbrickhouse, 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 @henrykironde

✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @chrisbrickhouse

✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

whedon commented 2 years ago

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @henrykironde, @chrisbrickhouse 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 2 years ago 
Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.09 s (513.7 files/s, 66339.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          37           1005           1517           2626
Markdown                         5            254              0            470
YAML                             4             56              5            187
Dockerfile                       1              9             18             22
Scheme                           1              2             20              8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            48           1326           1560           3313
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statistical information for the repository 'e85776f83beb21067f4894a1' was
gathered on 2021/11/29.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Bootphon Project                 1             2              2            0.02
Mathieu Bernard                161         10312           5187           95.35
Pius Friesch                     1             2              1            0.02
Rachine                          4            80             18            0.60
Song Li                          1             1              1            0.01
ctlaltdefeat                     1             1              1            0.01
gdoras                           1             2              2            0.02
hadware                          5           341            302            3.96

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
Mathieu Bernard            5144           49.9         10.5               19.07
Pius Friesch                  1           50.0         44.3                0.00
ctlaltdefeat                  1          100.0         10.3                0.00
hadware                       2            0.6         20.9                0.00
whedon commented 2 years ago

PDF failed to compile for issue #3958 with the following error: 

 Can't find any papers to compile :-(
danielskatz commented 2 years ago

@whedon generate pdf from branch joss

whedon commented 2 years ago 
Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch joss. Reticulating splines etc...
whedon commented 2 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 2 years ago

@henrykironde and @chrisbrickhouse - 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, reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#3958 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 either 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.

whedon commented 2 years ago

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

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

👋 @mmmaat - it looks like we are close to done, but I note the open issue shown above from @chrisbrickhouse that appears to be blocking him from checking off at least one item on his review.

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

👋 @chrisbrickhouse - is there anything else blocking you at this point?

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

👋 @henrykironde - I assume from your checklist that you are satisfied with the submission?

chrisbrickhouse commented 2 years ago

@danielskatz Thanks for the reminder! I've checked off the remaining items and closed the open issue. I have no further concerns and recommend acceptance.

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

great - thanks @chrisbrickhouse!

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

👋 @mmmaat - the next step will be me proof-reading the paper, and then asking you to archive the software with a release tag - I'll try to do this fairly soon.

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

@whedon check references from branch joss

whedon commented 2 years ago 
Attempting to check references... from custom branch joss
danielskatz commented 2 years ago

@whedon generate pdf from branch joss

whedon commented 2 years ago 
Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch joss. Reticulating splines etc...
whedon commented 2 years ago

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

whedon commented 2 years ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.3549784 is OK
- 10.21437/Interspeech.2018-1456 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.9846 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.3758/s13428-019-01223-3 may be a valid DOI for title: WordSeg: Standardizing unsupervised word form segmentation from text
- 10.1109/taslp.2019.2960721 may be a valid DOI for title: Non-Parallel Sequence-to-Sequence Voice Conversion with Disentangled Linguistic and Speaker Representations
- 10.1162/opmi_a_00022 may be a valid DOI for title: Segmentability differences between child-directed and adult-directed speech: A systematic test with an ecologically valid corpus
- 10.1109/asru.2017.8268953 may be a valid DOI for title: The zero resource speech challenge 2017
- 10.1109/icassp40776.2020.9053512 may be a valid DOI for title: Espnet-TTS: Unified, reproducible, and integratable open source end-to-end text-to-speech toolkit
- 10.21437/interspeech.2017-1386 may be a valid DOI for title: Montreal Forced Aligner: trainable text-speech alignment using Kaldi
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0237702 may be a valid DOI for title: Infant-directed input and literacy effects on phonological processing: Non-word repetition scores among the Tsimane’

INVALID DOIs

- None
danielskatz commented 2 years ago

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

In addition, I'm now proof-reading the paper and bibliography to see if there are any other issues.

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

👋 @mmmaat - reading the paper, I'm a little surprised the intro paragraph mentions phones, speech, and text, but not phonemes, particularly for a package called phonemizer. Would it make sense to also mention phonemes here?

In addition, I've suggested some minor changes for language and bib entry cases in https://github.com/bootphon/phonemizer/pull/101

henrykironde commented 2 years ago

👋 @henrykironde - I assume from your checklist that you are satisfied with the submission?

Yes, I recommend acceptance.

mmmaat commented 2 years ago

@danielskatz thanks for editing this paper. I will add the missing DOIs today. Thanks for correcting the typos in the text, I just merged your PR.

About your question about phones and phonemes... Actually phone/phonetic is related to text and phoneme/phonemic is related to speech. I made a mistake when calling that tool the phonemizer 6 years ago, it would have better been called phonetizer but... this is too late.

mmmaat commented 2 years ago

@whedon check references from branch joss

whedon commented 2 years ago 
Attempting to check references... from custom branch joss
whedon commented 2 years ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.3758/s13428-019-01223-3 is OK
- 10.1109/taslp.2019.2960721 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3549784 is OK
- 10.1162/opmi_a_00022 is OK
- 10.1109/asru.2017.8268953 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp40776.2020.9053512 is OK
- 10.21437/Interspeech.2018-1456 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.9846 is OK
- 10.21437/interspeech.2017-1386 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0237702 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
mmmaat commented 2 years ago

@whedon generate pdf from branch joss

whedon commented 2 years ago 
Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch joss. Reticulating splines etc...
whedon commented 2 years ago

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

mmmaat commented 2 years ago

:wave: @mmmaat - the next step will be me proof-reading the paper, and then asking you to archive the software with a release tag - I'll try to do this fairly soon.

If everything it OK for you I will release phonemizer-3.0.1 with the changes made in the README.md during the review and the two minor bugs recently fixed. I prefer not to merge the paper/ folder in the main branch, what do you think?

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

It's fine not to merge the paper into the main branch.

At this point could you:

I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

mmmaat commented 2 years ago

Here we are:

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

@whedon set v3.0.1 as version

whedon commented 2 years ago

OK. v3.0.1 is the version.

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.5791097 as archive

whedon commented 2 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.5791097 is the archive.

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

@whedon recommend-accept from branch joss

whedon commented 2 years ago 
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
whedon commented 2 years ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.3758/s13428-019-01223-3 is OK
- 10.1109/taslp.2019.2960721 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3549784 is OK
- 10.1162/opmi_a_00022 is OK
- 10.1109/asru.2017.8268953 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp40776.2020.9053512 is OK
- 10.21437/Interspeech.2018-1456 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.9846 is OK
- 10.21437/interspeech.2017-1386 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0237702 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
whedon commented 2 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/2834

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/2834, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true from branch joss
danielskatz commented 2 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true from branch joss

whedon commented 2 years ago 
Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...
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:

  1. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/2835
  2. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03958
  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 2 years ago

Congratulations to @mmmaat (Bernard) and co-author!!

And thanks very much for @henrykironde and @chrisbrickhouse for the quick review! We couldn't do this without you

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.03958/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03958)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03958">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03958/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03958/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03958

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:

mmmaat commented 2 years ago

Congratulations to @mmmaat (Bernard) and co-author!!

And thanks very much for @henrykironde and @chrisbrickhouse for the quick review! We couldn't do this without you

Thank you @danielskatz, @henrykironde and @chrisbrickhouse !

hadware commented 2 years ago

This is fantastic, thanks a lot for accepting our work :)