search

openjournals / joss-reviews

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

[PRE REVIEW]: BlenderProc2 #4783

Closed editorialbot closed 2 years ago

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@themasterlink<!--end-author-handle-- (Maximilian Denninger) Repository: https://github.com/DLR-RM/BlenderProc Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v2.4.1 Editor: !--editor-->@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @nicoguaro, @BradyAJohnston, @natevm, @SelvamArul Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b6c09bcbf480413af8867609fa47ec6a"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b6c09bcbf480413af8867609fa47ec6a/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b6c09bcbf480413af8867609fa47ec6a/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b6c09bcbf480413af8867609fa47ec6a)

Author instructions

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

@themasterlink 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 commented 2 years ago

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 commented 2 years ago 
Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.48 s (903.3 files/s, 111040.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                         284           6236          11970          18090
YAML                            59             12             72           8429
Markdown                        80           1760              0           5195
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            315            700
SVG                              1              1              0            195
TeX                              1              1              0            144
XML                              1              2              0            116
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             27
Bourne Shell                     2              3              2             14
CSS                              1              7              3             11
make                             1              4              6             11
JSON                             1              0              0              7
reStructuredText                 1              2              5              0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           434           8036          12374          32939
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 858

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1109/iccv.2019.00943 may be a valid DOI for title: Habitat: A Platform for Embodied AI Research
- 10.1007/978-3-030-01231-1_43 may be a valid DOI for title: Implicit 3D Orientation Learning for 6D Object Detection from RGB Images
- 10.1109/iccv.2019.00943 may be a valid DOI for title: Habitat: A Platform for Embodied AI Research
- 10.1109/iccv.2015.308 may be a valid DOI for title: Render for CNN: Viewpoint Estimation in Images Using CNNs Trained with Rendered 3D Model Views
- 10.1109/icip.2019.8803821 may be a valid DOI for title: Photorealistic Image Synthesis for Object Instance Detection
- 10.1109/icra40945.2020.9197309 may be a valid DOI for title: Stillleben: Realistic Scene Synthesis for Deep Learning in Robotics
- 10.1109/iccv48922.2021.01075 may be a valid DOI for title: 3D-FRONT: 3D furnished rooms with layouts and semantics

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:

arfon commented 2 years ago

@themasterlink – many thanks for your submission to JOSS. I see you note a rewrite of the API for BlenderProc2 – would it be possible to provide a diff between the earlier version of the codebase and this one submitted for review here? e.g., like described here: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/committing-changes-to-your-project/viewing-and-comparing-commits/comparing-commits

themasterlink commented 2 years ago

@arfon

Something like this? https://github.com/DLR-RM/BlenderProc/compare/v1.5.0...v2.4.1

As we basically have rewritten the whole library, we have changed every file and made over 2.000 commits. The version 1.5.0 was used in the last publication about BlenderProc, while this new publication covers the full transition to the new python API and all new features since 2020.

Thanks for your help with this!

themasterlink commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot commands

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Hello @themasterlink, here are the things you can ask me to do:


# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers
themasterlink commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot check references

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

OK DOIs

- 10.48550/ARXIV.1906.05797 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1611.08974 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1902.01275 is OK
- 10.1109/ICCV.2019.00943 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1505.05641 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1902.03334 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2005.05659 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2011.09127 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1512.03012 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1911.01911 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2203.03570 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
arfon commented 2 years ago

@themasterlink - thanks for your submission to JOSS. We're currently managing a large backlog of submissions and the editor most appropriate for your area is already rather busy.

For now, we will need to waitlist this paper and process it as the queue reduces. Thanks for your patience!

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot invite @hugoledoux as editor

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@themasterlink I had a quick look at the paper. I recommend that you expand the title a bit e.g. in the more usual format: softwareName: What it does in about one sentence. You can update the paper here by calling @editorialbot generate pdf.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot assign me as editor

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Assigned! @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman is now the editor

themasterlink commented 2 years ago

I recommend that you expand the title a bit e.g. in the more usual format

Done, thanks for the recommendation.

themasterlink commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

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:

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@themasterlink over the coming week I will be looking for reviewers. If you would like to suggest reviewers that would be helpful too. Please mention their github handles here but leave out the @ symbol so they are not tagged yet. Thanks

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@themasterlink could you please help suggest reviewers too? :point_up: thanks

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@nicoguaro is this something you could help review?

themasterlink commented 2 years ago

@themasterlink could you please help suggest reviewers too? point_up thanks

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Sorry, how should I suggest a reviewer? I am the person who wrote the paper. I can not select the person who reviews it. That would make the whole review process worthless.

If we ignore that, I would pick natevm, I don't know him personally, and he is part of the team behind NVISII, which is similar to BlenderProc, so he should be able to review the paper.

But, still, it seems very odd to me that I should pick my reviewer :D

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@themasterlink apologies for the confusion. It is not that you "get to pick/assign" reviewers, that remains up to the editor, i.e. me, however it is common for journals to accept reviewer suggestions from the authors. I hope that clarifies it. I also asked not to use the @ symbol to avoid tagging them, so if you have any other suggestions please just list their github name and I can explore whether to invite them here. Thanks.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@BradyAJohnston @xqms @SelvamArul @aadi-mishra @tduboudi @xheon @natevm would you be interested in reviewing this submission for the Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS)? The work in question is titled: "BlenderProc2: A Procedural Pipeline for Photorealistic Rendering", and has applications to deep learning methods.

JOSS reviews happen on GitHub and focus on reviewing the software as well as a short paper.

For more information on our review process see our review guidelines.

You can let me know in this issue if you are interested in reviewing this work.

themasterlink commented 2 years ago

@themasterlink apologies for the confusion. It is not that you "get to pick/assign" reviewers, that remains up to the editor, i.e. me, however it is common for journals to accept reviewer suggestions from the authors. I hope that clarifies it. I also asked not to use the @ symbol to avoid tagging them, so if you have any other suggestions please just list their github name and I can explore whether to invite them here. Thanks.

Thanks for the explanation!

BradyAJohnston commented 2 years ago

Hi @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman I'd be interested but wouldn't be able to for a couple of weeks as I'm traveling, best someone else took it on in that time likely.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@BradyAJohnston if you do not mind I would like to assign you as reviewer anyway. It takes time to find the reviewers and to get started and to complete the full process so you will likely not delay things much. Would it be okay if I assigned you? Enjoy your travels.

nicoguaro commented 2 years ago

@nicoguaro is this something you could help review?

I think so, but we are starting finals... so it would take some time.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@nicoguaro that is okay. I'll assign you for now if that is okay.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot add @nicoguaro as reviewer

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

@nicoguaro added to the reviewers list!

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@xqms @SelvamArul @aadi-mishra @tduboudi @xheon @natevm would you be interested in reviewing this submission for the Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS)? The work in question is titled: "BlenderProc2: A Procedural Pipeline for Photorealistic Rendering", and has applications to deep learning methods.

JOSS reviews happen on GitHub and focus on reviewing the software as well as a short paper.

For more information on our review process see our review guidelines.

You can let me know in this issue if you are interested in reviewing this work.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@BradyAJohnston do you mind if I assign you as reviewer?

BradyAJohnston commented 2 years ago

Yep you can assign me.

SelvamArul commented 2 years ago

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Sure, I am interested in reviewing this submission.

natevm commented 2 years ago

I’d be interested !-NateOn Nov 1, 2022, at 2:03 AM, Kevin Mattheus Moerman @.***> wrote: @xqms @SelvamArul @aadi-mishra @tduboudi @xheon @natevm would you be interested in reviewing this submission for the Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS)? The work in question is titled: "BlenderProc2: A Procedural Pipeline for Photorealistic Rendering", and has applications to deep learning methods. JOSS reviews happen on GitHub and focus on reviewing the software as well as a short paper. For more information on our review process see our review guidelines. You can let me know in this issue if you are interested in reviewing this work.

—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

aadi-mishra commented 2 years ago

Sorry for the late response I wasn't available. Yes, I can review the submission.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot add @BradyAJohnston as reviewer

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

@BradyAJohnston added to the reviewers list!

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot add @natevm as reviewer

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

@natevm added to the reviewers list!

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot add @SelvamArul as reviewer

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

@SelvamArul added to the reviewers list!

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@aadi-mishra thanks for getting back to me and for being interested in reviewing this work for JOSS. We now have 4 reviewers assigned, which is sufficient, so it looks like we do not need your help on this occasion. If one of the reviewers can no longer help I might get back to you. Thanks again, Kevin

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot start review

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/4901.