[REVIEW]: FunFact: Build Your Own Tensor Decomposition Model in a Breeze

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@yhtang@melissawm<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @Hanrui-Wang, @fabian-sp Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/51fa1d81375a46351e32d48eb1c66105"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/51fa1d81375a46351e32d48eb1c66105/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/51fa1d81375a46351e32d48eb1c66105/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/51fa1d81375a46351e32d48eb1c66105)

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

@Hanrui-Wang & @fabian-sp, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review. First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @melissawm 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 ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @fabian-sp

📝 Checklist for @Hanrui-Wang

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Hello humans, 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 commented 2 years ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.25 s (499.3 files/s, 56959.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          68           1239            911           5722
SVG                              4              0              0           2552
Markdown                        40            522              0           1667
YAML                             4              0             15            253
TeX                              1             23              0            235
Jupyter Notebook                 2              0            711            178
INI                              1              7              0             50
JavaScript                       2              1              0             21
make                             1              9              0             16
CSS                              1              3              1             11
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           124           1804           1638          10705
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 1275

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.5180716 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1145/3133901 is OK
- 10.1109/ACSSC.2016.7869679 is OK
- 10.1186/1687-6180-2014-139 is OK
- 10.1038/s42254-019-0086-7 is OK
- 10.1137/07070111X is OK
- 10.1109/TSP.2017.2690524 is OK
- 10.1137/050644756 is OK
- 10.1137/090752286 is OK
- 10.1017/CBO9780511976667 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-030-95953-1_7 may be a valid DOI for title: COMET: A Domain-Specific Compilation of High-Performance Computational Chemistry

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot 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:

fabian-sp commented 2 years ago

Review checklist for @fabian-sp

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 https://github.com/yhtang/FunFact?
[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 (@yhtang) 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

[x] 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).
[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?
[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

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, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[x] 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)?
[ ] 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?

Hanrui-Wang commented 2 years ago

Review checklist for @Hanrui-Wang

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 https://github.com/yhtang/FunFact?
[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 (@yhtang) 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?
[x] 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

[x] 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).
[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?
[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

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, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[x] 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?

fabian-sp commented 2 years ago

I will open an issue in the repository for every topic/question that I encounter. Hope this is okay for everyone.

melissawm commented 2 years ago

That is ok, @fabian-sp - I would kindly ask that you post updates here in this issue once in a while for visibility. Thanks!

fabian-sp commented 2 years ago

I have a general question regarding the license: on Github I see on the right-hand side only a "View license" where I typically would see the license type (e.g. BSD-3-Clause license). As I am not 100% firm on licencing legal background, I would like to ask @melissawm what exactly needs to be fulfilled to check off the License point? Strictly speaking, Github seems to not recognize the license of this repo as a BSD-3-Clause license.

melissawm commented 2 years ago

Hello, @fabian-sp ! We had a discussion about this in the pre-review. @yhtang can you confirm that this is correct? Thank you!

yhtang commented 2 years ago

Hello, @fabian-sp ! We had a discussion about this in the pre-review. @yhtang can you confirm that this is correct? Thank you!

Correct. Our LBNL variant of the BSD license is an OSI-approved open-source license. We had a minor format issue during the pre-review, and that was already fixed. @melissawm @fabian-sp

melissawm commented 2 years ago

Hi folks 👋🏻 just checking in on the status of these reviews, anything I can help with?

fabian-sp commented 2 years ago

Hi @melissawm, I had opened three issues with questions or possible additional examples for the package. One of them has been adressed already. I would wait for an answer on the other two questions I had before checking all the remaining points in my checklist.

melissawm commented 2 years ago

Hi folks, any updates on this review? Thanks!

yhtang commented 2 years ago

Hi folks, any updates on this review? Thanks!

Hi @melissawm, we are currently working on a recently discovered bug, which is related to the self-consistency check that @fabian-sp raised. It turns out to have a deeper cause and hence would require a little longer to fix. I'll update back once we have that taken care of. Thanks for asking!