[PRE REVIEW]: mlpack 4: a fast, header-only C++ machine learning library

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@rcurtin<!--end-author-handle-- (Ryan Curtin) Repository: https://github.com/mlpack/mlpack Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): mlpack4_joss Version: v4.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@osorensen<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @sandeep-ps, @zhangjy-ge Managing EiC: George K. Thiruvathukal

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/35ade482a14780ee52bad48fcc5f2be5"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/35ade482a14780ee52bad48fcc5f2be5/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/35ade482a14780ee52bad48fcc5f2be5/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/35ade482a14780ee52bad48fcc5f2be5)

Author instructions

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

@rcurtin 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=1.28 s (1267.3 files/s, 290336.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                           files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C/C++ Header                        1194          29525          70231         132436
C++                                  266          17996          24091          65742
Markdown                              49           3048              1          10825
CMake                                 60            734           1257           7159
Python                                 7            350            457           1459
Go                                     5            211            141           1114
YAML                                   8             82            103            531
Julia                                  1             88             55            335
Bourne Shell                           5             58             67            293
TeX                                    2             34              0            285
Cython                                 7             96            200            284
R                                      4             80             66            228
XML                                    3              0              0            211
CSS                                    1             19             11            121
JavaScript                             1              8             20             82
MSBuild script                         1              0              0             52
WiX source                             1              4              2             33
WiX string localization                1              1              0              6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                                1616          52334          96702         221196
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 517

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/MIS.2009.36 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00026 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- 10.1.1.676.5625 is INVALID

[rcurtin]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.

[rcurtin]

@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:

[rcurtin]

Ok, there we go, everything seems good now. :) I have no particular reviewer recommendations; I suppose those who reviewed the mlpack 3 paper might be a decent choice, but it also might be a good idea to get new eyes on it.

[conradsnicta]

editorialbot wrote:

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

Strange. There was always a "Statement of Need" section on the first page of the paper; see line 24 within the generated pdf.

[rcurtin]

Yeah, it picked up a different paper (the mlpack 3 paper) in the repository, which I'd forgotten to remove. I pushed a commit to the branch and now it renders the right one, where there is a Statement of Need section.

[rcurtin]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @rcurtin, 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

[rcurtin]

I'm not sure whether there is anything I need to do here. Someone please let me know if the next steps are on me :)

[gkthiruvathukal]

@rcurtin I am working to find an editor for this submission. We have a bit of a backlog. I have also been a bit under the weather this past week so things are moving very slowly. Thank you for your patience.

[rcurtin]

Thanks @gkthiruvathukal for the response. Take your time, and I hope you feel better soon! I just wanted to make sure that nothing was waiting on us. :)

[arfon]

@gkthiruvathukal – I'll mark this as waitlisted for now.

[osorensen]

@gkthiruvathukal I can edit this one.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot assign @osorensen as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @osorensen is now the editor

[osorensen]

:wave: @sandeep-ps, @Radonirinaunimi, @max-little, would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[sandeep-ps]

Hi, @osorensen,

Yes, I'm interested in reviewing this submission. I have very briefly looked at the checklist. Please let me know the next steps and the expected timeline for the review. Thanks.

[osorensen]

Thanks @sandeep-ps! When I have found another reviewer I'll start the review issue, and then it would be much appreciated if you could start the review within 3 weeks. You're welcome to reach out to me whenever you have any further questions.

[osorensen]

@editorialbot add @sandeep-ps as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@sandeep-ps added to the reviewers list!

[osorensen]

:wave: @zhangjy-ge, @AP6YC, would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[zhangjy-ge]

👋 @zhangjy-ge, @AP6YC, would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

Hi, yes I would be happy to review paper.

[osorensen]

@editorialbot add @zhangjy-ge as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@zhangjy-ge added to the reviewers list!

[osorensen]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5026.