Closed editorialbot closed 1 year 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
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.01 s (201.3 files/s, 13287.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Markdown 1 15 0 77
TeX 1 9 0 74
YAML 1 1 4 18
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 3 25 4 169
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 663
Failed to discover a valid open source license
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- None
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1017/9781316671665.004 may be a valid DOI for title: Topological data analysis
- 10.1145/1873951.1874254 may be a valid DOI for title: Torchvision the machine-vision package of torch
- 10.3389/frai.2021.681108 may be a valid DOI for title: A survey of topological machine learning methods
INVALID DOIs
- None
Hello @matteocao! The paper has three authors and I see that all three are contributors to the repository. However, there are two contributors that i) are not authors, and ii) have contributed more than one contributor who is an author (at least by GitHub's measures here)
Could you please clarify how authorship was determined for your JOSS submission?
Dear @leotrs , Thank you for your question. Of the two contributors (that are not authors) you mention, one has joined the efforts very recently and hence has not (yet) contributed to any design/core functionality of the library. The other one, on the other hand, after the initial contributions (1y ago) has completely gone silent and still today we are not able to reach him. This is why we did not include him. Let me know if this answer is satisfactory enough and/or if you have any suggestion on how to best proceed.
To further clarify: @giotto-learn and @matteocao are the same physical person.
Thanks for the clarification. I think the current author list makes sense. Do consider to add the names of other/past contributors in the acknowledgements section of the paper.
@matteocao I can see your CI runs pytest on the root directory but wasn't able to find a directory containing a test suite. Could you please point me to it? Thanks!
@matteocao I see no mention of related/similar software in the current paper. Are there absolutely no other options for using topological techniques in deep learning?
Dear @leotrs , Thank you for your message.
@matteocao I can see your CI runs pytest on the root directory but wasn't able to find a directory containing a test suite. Could you please point me to it? Thanks!
The unit tests are written per module, meaning that there is a folder called tests
in each module folder. Here some examples:
The integration tests (or maybe even callable e2e tests) are the notebookes themselves: all of those in here
We find this way of organising tests reasonable (as opposed to putting all tests in one single folder). Please let us know if this feels reasonable for you as well.
@matteocao I see no mention of related/similar software in the current paper. Are there absolutely no other options for using topological techniques in deep learning?
There are indeed no package that try to do what we do. I would like however to mention the only possibly similar one, though much more limited in scope: https://github.com/MathieuCarriere/perslay. This packages implements one single technique that is topology-flavoured for feed-forward deep networks. Important note: even though we understood the paper (and we did cite such paper) and later were able to reproduce its content, we have not been able to use ay part of this "PersLay" package due to the total lack of documentation and structure. Please feel free to advise on what's the best course of action. Thank you!
Both responses sound reasonable to me. Thanks.
I have finished my review and I believe the paper can be accepted as is.
Thanks a lot for your time and efforts, @leotrs
Congratulations @matteocao, it is a nice library for the TDA community. I think the paper can be accepted. Just a remark, it would be nice to mention in the paper that previously, people have used TDA libraries such as Gudhi together with deep learning libraries such as scikit-learn, TensorFlow or PyTorch.
I tested the package installation on both Windows and Ubuntu. Good for both platforms, actually. I'm grateful for @matteocao . I also didn't see anything different from what other reviewers had already noted. Finally, my review is completed, and I think the document can be accepted just as it is. It will be a great package for TDA folks.
Wow! Thanks to all of @EduPH, @leotrs, @ismailguzel for completing your reviews so quickly!
@matteocao, I will now read through the paper a final time, and let you know if I have any suggested changes. In the meantime, could you please
@editorialbot generate pdf
@editorialbot check references
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- None
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1017/9781316671665.004 may be a valid DOI for title: Topological data analysis
- 10.1145/1873951.1874254 may be a valid DOI for title: Torchvision the machine-vision package of torch
- 10.3389/frai.2021.681108 may be a valid DOI for title: A survey of topological machine learning methods
INVALID DOIs
- None
Dear @osorensen ,
Thank you for your message. Here the data you asked for:
Thanks @matteocao
A few comments on the manuscript
giotto-deep
, but on line 39 you write "Giotto-deep" with capital first letter. Please pick one and be consistent.giotto-deep
, so it becomes "The giotto-deep
architecture ..."Please let me know when this is done, and I can move forward with accepting the publication.
Dear @osorensen ,
Thank you for your message and for your suggestions. All the changes have been made and the pdf compilation worked. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do.
Thank you!
@editorialbot generate pdf
@editorialbot set v0.0.3 as archive
Done! Archive is now v0.0.3
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7243721 as archive
Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7243721
@editorialbot set v0.0.3 as version
Done! version is now v0.0.3
@editorialbot set v0.0.3 as version
Done! version is now v0.0.3
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7243721 as archive
Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7243721
Sorry for all the posts, I mixed up the commands a bit :-)
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
:wave: @openjournals/dsais-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.
Check final proof :point_right::page_facing_up: Download article
If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/3640, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept
@editorialbot accept
Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...
🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦
🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨
Here's what you must now do:
Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...
@EduPH, @leotrs, @ismailguzel – many thanks for your reviews here and to @osorensen 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 ✨
@matteocao – your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS :zap::rocket::boom:
: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.04846/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04846)
HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04846">
<img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04846/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>
reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04846/status.svg
:target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04846
This is how it will look in your documentation:
We need your help!
The 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:
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@matteocao<!--end-author-handle-- (Matteo Caorsi) Repository: https://github.com/giotto-ai/giotto-deep Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper Version: v0.0.3 Editor: !--editor-->@osorensen<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @EduPH, @leotrs, @ismailguzel Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7243721
Status
Status badge code:
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
@EduPH & @leotrs & @ismailguzel, 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:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @osorensen 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 @EduPH
📝 Checklist for @leotrs
📝 Checklist for @ismailguzel