[PRE REVIEW]: Pose2Sim: An Open-Source Python Package for multiview markerless kinematics

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@DavidPagnon<!--end-author-handle-- (David Pagnon) Repository: https://gitlab.inria.fr/perfanalytics/pose2sim Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@danasolav<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @lambdaloop, @jonmatthis, @CVHammond Managing EiC: Kevin M. Moerman

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a31cb207a180f7ac9838d049e3a0de26"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a31cb207a180f7ac9838d049e3a0de26/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a31cb207a180f7ac9838d049e3a0de26/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a31cb207a180f7ac9838d049e3a0de26)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @DavidPagnon. Currently, there isn't an JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@DavidPagnon if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.91 s (596.3 files/s, 153634.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XML                            113              0           8367         125018
Python                          22            960           1319           2169
Markdown                         2            120              0            526
JSON                           400              0              0            400
TOML                             2             24             12            106
TeX                              1             10              0             99
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           540           1114           9698         128318
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1020

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1109/iccv.2017.256 may be a valid DOI for title: RMPE: Regional Multi-person Pose Estimation
- 10.1101/2020.12.10.420075 may be a valid DOI for title: Concurrent assessment of gait kinematics using marker-based and markerless motion capture
- 10.1101/2020.05.26.117325 may be a valid DOI for title: Anipose: a toolkit for robust markerless 3D pose estimation
- 10.1038/s41593-018-0209-y may be a valid DOI for title: DeepLabCut: markerless pose estimation of user-defined body parts with deep learning
- 10.3390/s21196530 may be a valid DOI for title: Pose2Sim: An End-to-End Workflow for 3D Markerless Sports Kinematics—Part 1: Robustness
- 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2007.07.007 may be a valid DOI for title: Two simple methods for determining gait events during treadmill and overground walking using kinematic data

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@davidpagnon thanks for this submission. I had a quick look at your paper and noticed a couple of minor issues. Before we proceed perhaps you can address the following quick points.

• [x] Can you check those potentially missing DOI's :point_up:. Once done you can call @editorialbot check references in a comment here to check them again.
• [x] You may use open source instead of open-source throughout your paper.
• [x] Instead of The workflow is organized as such: I recommend The workflow is organized as follows:
• [x] Instead of 2D keypoints detection I recommend 2D keypoint detection
• [x] Instead of pieces of softwares I recommend pieces of software.
• [x] Instead of Cameras calibration I recommend Camera calibration.
• [x] It looks like the item list for the Pose2Sim workflow could use fixing/indentation, e.g. 2.i. Cameras calibration.
• [x] The text Pose2Sim pipeline. seems to stand on its own and looks like it used to relate to a heading or a section perhaps. Can you check this.
• [x] Instead of Among others, users can edit: I recommend something like Among other things, users can edit: or Among other aspects, users can edit:
• [x] The text and reprojection error, ends in a comma and appears incomplete. Please correct/check.

Once done with the above you may call @editorialbot generate pdf to update the paper draft.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@danasolav is this paper something you can help handle as editer? If not I can take it.

Here are some suggested reviewers from my end: apoorvar, chrisdembia, CVHammond, moorepants, modenaxe, BKillen05, jonmatthis

@davidpagnon, as author you can help suggest reviewers too if you like. You can mention their github handles here but leave out the @ so they are not yet tagged, since it is up to the handling editor who to invite. Thanks.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot invite @danasolav as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@davidpagnon before we move on. Can you help clarify how the current submission differs from previously published work? E.g. how is the content communicated previously different from what is sought to be published here? Note that having a paper on theory first and then software here is permitted in principle but we do need to establish there is not significant doubling here.

• Pose2Sim: An End-to-End Workflow for 3D Markerless Sports Kinematics—Part 2: Accuracy https://doi.org/10.3390/s22072712
• Pose2Sim: An End-to-End Workflow for 3D Markerless Sports Kinematics—Part 1: Robustness https://doi.org/10.3390/s21196530
• The ECSS conference submission.

[davidpagnon]

@editorialbot check references

[davidpagnon]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/TPAMI.2019.2929257 is OK
- 10.1109/TBME.2007.901024 is OK
- 10.1109/ICCV.2017.256 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110665 is OK
- 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109730 is OK
- 10.1038/s41593-018-0209-y is OK
- 10.3390/s21196530 is OK
- 10.3390/s22072712 is OK
- 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2007.07.007 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2012.13392 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@davidpagnon thanks for making most changes. The DOI's look good now, however one point remains see :point_up:

[davidpagnon]

Dear Kevin, thank you for all your suggestions! I'm sorry I had to leave in the middle of answering you. I just solved the last of your points.

Here are some suggested reviewers from my end: apoorvar, chrisdembia, CVHammond, moorepants, modenaxe, BKillen05, jonmatthis

All of them seem to be great, maybe especially:

• apoorvar since I use her OpenSim model
• jonmatthis since I quote AniPose

@davidpagnon before we move on. Can you help clarify how the current submission differs from previously published work? E.g. how is the content communicated previously different from what is sought to be published here? Note that having a paper on theory first and then software here is permitted in principle but we do need to establish there is not significant doubling here.

• Pose2Sim: An End-to-End Workflow for 3D Markerless Sports Kinematics—Part 2: Accuracy https://doi.org/10.3390/s22072712
• Pose2Sim: An End-to-End Workflow for 3D Markerless Sports Kinematics—Part 1: Robustness https://doi.org/10.3390/s21196530
• The ECSS conference submission.

• The first paper explores the robustness of the protocol to calibration errors, to blurry and dark images, and to a low number of cameras
• The second one explores its accuracy on lower-limb kinematics on walking, running, and cycling
• The conference paper uses Pose2Sim to gather key performance indicators in a specific and challenging sport However, the code itself has not been evaluated.

[davidpagnon]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[danielskatz]

👋 @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman - are you ok with the comments above? If so, I hope either @danasolav or you can edit this submission.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@danielskatz yes I'm happy with those comments/changes. I would prefer if @danasolav takes this but I'll be a reserve in case she cannot. I'll repeat the invite in case she missed it.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot invite @danasolav as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[danasolav]

Sorry for the slow response. I can take it.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot assign @danasolav as editor

Thanks @danasolav - for the future, if you are willing to edit, you can use the command above to assign yourself the submission too

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @danasolav is now the editor

[danasolav]

@apoorvar, @chrisdembia, @CVHammond, @moorepants, @modenaxe, @jonmatthis, @lambdaloop, Would you be interested in reviewing this work on 3D markerless kinematic analysis of human movement (resository and short paper), for the Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS)?

For those of you not familiar with JOSS, the review process focuses on evaluation of the software as well as a short paper. JOSS reviews take place on GitHub, they are open and usually smooth and streamlined. Note we can be flexible regarding time needed for review.

[jonmatthis]

Happy to!

[lambdaloop]

Sure, I can review it as well. Please let me know where to write the review.

[modenaxe]

Hello, the project looks super cool, but I cannot review it at the moment. I hope two reviewers are enough, otherwise I can suggest some additional ones.

[danasolav]

@modenaxe, two reviewers are generally enough, but it would be great to have also someone from the OpenSim side, as both reviewers seem to come from the mocap/pose estimation side. So if you know any OpenSim developer/pro user who you think may be interested to review this, please let us know.

[danasolav]

@editorialbot add @lambdaloop as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@lambdaloop added to the reviewers list!

[danasolav]

@editorialbot add @jonmatthis as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@jonmatthis added to the reviewers list!

[danasolav]

@lambdaloop, the review process takes place on a github issue that will open soon. In the meantime, you can take a look at the review checklist that you'll have to complete.

[cvhammond]

I can review as well

[danasolav]

@editorialbot add @CVHammond as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@CVHammond added to the reviewers list!

[danasolav]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/4362.

[danasolav]

@lambdaloop @jonmatthis @CVHammond, thank you for agreeing to review this submission. The review process takes place here.

[modenaxe]

@danasolav sorry I am reading this only now but I see you found the reviewer you were looking for, great!