[PRE REVIEW]: brains-py: A framework to support research on energy-efficient unconventional hardware for machine learning

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@ualegre<!--end-author-handle-- (Unai Alegre-Ibarra) Repository: https://github.com/braiNEdarwin/brains-py Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): master Version: 1.0.2 Editor: !--editor-->@arfon<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: !--reviewers-list-->@wob86<!--end-reviewers-list-- Managing EiC: Kevin M. Moerman

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/af9dc02733d17cac673fd042ac514272"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/af9dc02733d17cac673fd042ac514272/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/af9dc02733d17cac673fd042ac514272/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/af9dc02733d17cac673fd042ac514272)

Author instructions

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

@ualegre 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]

Checking the BibTeX entries failed with the following error:

No paper file path

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.24 s (591.9 files/s, 101700.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          80           2388           8297          10834
TeX                              1            136              0            920
reStructuredText                52            990            462            207
Markdown                         2             47              0            133
YAML                             6              7             22             73
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           143           3580           8789          12202
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[editorialbot]

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf. Paper file not found.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@ualegre thanks for this submission. Our system cannot find the paper. Can you clarify where it is? Is it called paper.md? Is it on the master branch?

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@ualegre :wave:

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@ualegre can you respond to the query above?

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@ualegre please respond to the above. :wave:

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@uelegre please respond on where the paper is. I believe it is this file: https://github.com/BraiNEdarwin/brains-py/blob/master/docs/sample.md, but it should be named paper.md, also, it looks like the paper is not formatted according to our requirements, for instance it should contain a Statement of need section. If you are interested in pursuing review with JOSS we require that you address these and respond to queries raised here.
If we do not hear from you within a week I will assume you are no longer interesting in pursuing review with JOSS and we will reject this submission.

[ualegre]

I was not expecting communications to be over Github. I am still interested in pursuing a review with JOSS. I will address these requests ASAP.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@ualegre yes the whole process takes place here, so do keep an eye out on notifications.

[ualegre]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman I have now added the Statement of need section and updated the format of paper.md file according to the requirements. This file can be found in the docs folder.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.

[ualegre]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman there seemed to be some issues related to the way in which I had uploaded the .yml file for specifying the action of generating the pdf. It now works on the workflow on my repository so if we generate it again it should work now.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.

[ualegre]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman It should be fixed now. I was confident it would pass before as it was passing for my own repository. I checked on the logs of my own github actions and it appears that, although passing, it did not like how the images were labelled. I just removed the labels now.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@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]

@ualegre below are some points on the paper that require your attention:

• [ ] Please rename Abstract to Summary, as this is customary for this journal.
• [ ] Please check why the heading #Framework description does not render properly.
• [ ] Remove the "Related publications" section and instead work such citations into the relevant text/sections discussing the background and state of the art. This way these papers will just be listed with the rest of the bibliography.

Once you've worked on the above you can call @editorialbot generate pdf here to update the paper. Similarly you can call @editorialbot check references to do a reference/DOI check. I'll trigger that check now too so you may work on any potentially missing/invalid DOIs.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1088/2634-4386/ac1a7f is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3828935 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1038/s41586-019-1901-0 may be a valid DOI for title: Classification with a disordered dopant-atom network in silicon
- 10.1038/s41565-020-00779-y may be a valid DOI for title: A deep-learning approach to realizing functionality in nanoelectronic devices
- 10.1109/ctems.2018.8769211 may be a valid DOI for title: A comparative analysis of gradient descent-based optimization algorithms on convolutional neural networks

INVALID DOIs

- None

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@ualegre I've just moved this submission to our "Data Science, Artificial Intelligence, and Machine Learning" track, which is managed by @gkthiruvathukal. So he will take it from here.

[ualegre]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/s41586-019-1901-0 is OK
- 10.1088/2634-4386/ac1a7f is OK
- 10.1038/s41565-020-00779-y is OK
- 10.1109/CTEMS.2018.8769211 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3828935 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.17.064025 is OK
- 10.1002/smsc.202000014 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[ualegre]

@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:

[ualegre]

@gkthiruvathukal I have now generated the PDF without errors, following the instructions from @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman. Let me know if something else is needed from my side.

[arfon]

@ualegre - 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!

[arfon]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @arfon is now the editor

[arfon]

@ualegre 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).

[ualegre]

From your list of people, it seems that lorenzo-rovigatti could have profile of simulation tools in topics that are closest to the topic that is being submitted.

[arfon]

@ualegre – thank you. Do you know of any people in your field that might also be suitable?

[ualegre]

Maybe Gunnar Tufte at the NTNU Norway could be suitable. I am not sure about his availability for reviewing though.

[arfon]

:wave: @kNalj – would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The submission under consideration is brains-py: A framework to support research on energy-efficient unconventional hardware for machine learning (https://github.com/braiNEdarwin/brains-py).

The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. You can learn more about the process in these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Based on your experience, we think you might be able to provide a great review of this submission. Please let me know if you think you can help us out!

Many thanks Arfon

[arfon]

👋 @aparna-aketi – would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The submission under consideration is brains-py: A framework to support research on energy-efficient unconventional hardware for machine learning (https://github.com/braiNEdarwin/brains-py).

The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. You can learn more about the process in these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Based on your experience, we think you might be able to provide a great review of this submission. Please let me know if you think you can help us out!

Many thanks Arfon

[arfon]

@ualegre – as you can see, I'm having trouble finding reviewers here. You have many coauthors on your paper, between you, could you please identify some more possible reviewers for this submission?

[ualegre]

@arfon, I will try to come up with a larger list of reviewers. Should the reviewers be within the list you sent me, or should we look for people that might be willing to review this outside of the list? If they are from outside the list, are there any special requirements that they should have?

[arfon]

Thanks @ualegre. Outside of the list is absolutely fine, for example, people in your extended professional network (feel free to send me names/email addresses directly if you're not comfortable naming people in public here – arfon.smith@gmail.com)

[ualegre]

@arfon I just sent you an email with a list of several possible reviewers. Hope it helps with the process.

[arfon]

@arfon I just sent you an email with a list of several possible reviewers. Hope it helps with the process.

Perfect. Thanks so much. I've contacted them all. Let's see if we get any accepts!

[arfon]

:wave: @ualegre – just checking in here. Unfortunately I didn't hear back from any of those potential reviewers :-(. I'm continuing to search.

[arfon]

@benedictjones – would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The submission under consideration is brains-py: A framework to support research on energy-efficient unconventional hardware for machine learning (https://github.com/braiNEdarwin/brains-py).

The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. You can learn more about the process in these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Based on your experience, we think you might be able to provide a great review of this submission. Please let me know if you think you can help us out!

Many thanks Arfon

[arfon]

Just a quick update – I've sent a few more email invites out this morning to potential reviewers.

[arfon]

I'm delighted to say that @wob86 as kindly agreed to review this submission for us. I'm going to go ahead and start the review now with @wob86 as the reviewer (I'll still look for a second reviewer while @wob86 gets started).

[arfon]

@editorialbot add @wob86 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@wob86 added to the reviewers list!