[PRE REVIEW]: neograd - A deep learning framework created from scratch using Python and NumPy

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@pranftw<!--end-author-handle-- (Pranav Sastry) Repository: https://github.com/pranftw/neograd Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss Version: v0.0.4.1 Editor: Pending Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c2dec4501d279f5a3bb03c26ed1ecba4"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c2dec4501d279f5a3bb03c26ed1ecba4/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c2dec4501d279f5a3bb03c26ed1ecba4/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c2dec4501d279f5a3bb03c26ed1ecba4)

Author instructions

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

@pranftw 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=0.09 s (537.2 files/s, 86045.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          28            882           1664           1517
Markdown                         3            149              0            709
CSS                              1            147             19            542
Jupyter Notebook                 3              0           1226            251
reStructuredText                 6             52             90             63
TeX                              1              5              0             58
YAML                             2              7              8             54
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
Bourne Shell                     1              5              0             25
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            47           1259           3015           3254
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 731

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.7387379 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1802.01528 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1912.01703 is OK
- 10.1038/323533a0 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[pranftw]

@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:

[pranftw]

Hey @arfon, thanks for starting the review process!

Based on the reviewers' primary language being Python, domain being Deep Learning, have completed at least one review all time and are sorted in descending order by their index, here are potential reviewers for this project: jingpengw paragkulkarni11 tuliofalmeida Het-Shah nilesh-patil vimalthilak shreyasbapat yxoos NMontanaBrown hgandhi2411 agisga magedhelmy1 GregaVrbancic bnriiitb arunmano121 alexssandrofc sepandhaghighi anki-xyz idoby ethanwharris amitkumarj441 professoralkmin vs74 hvgazula rmorgan10 sptennak pmeier DanielLenz EduPH tijeco levimcclenny ziatdinovmax justusschock omshinde

Also anyone else who are searching/filtering reviewers and isn't good with Excel stuff, I created a Google Colab notebook. Check it out and simplify your filtering process! Cheers and thanks!

[arfon]

@editorialbot query scope

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[pranftw]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @pranftw, 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

[pranftw]

@editorialbot check repository

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.28 s (170.2 files/s, 27307.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          28            882           1664           1517
Markdown                         3            154              0            716
CSS                              1            147             19            542
Jupyter Notebook                 3              0           1226            251
reStructuredText                 6             52             90             63
TeX                              1              5              0             58
YAML                             2              7              8             54
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
Bourne Shell                     1              5              0             25
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            47           1264           3015           3261
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 899

[pranftw]

@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:

[pranftw]

@arfon May I know why query scope was triggered? It would’ve been helpful if you’d provided the reason while doing so.

[danielskatz]

@pranftw - I agree with you that explaining these discussions is our normal practice, and I would have also expected it in this case. @arfon is currently on leave, and I'm sure he will explain when he gets back, so please be patient

[pranftw]

Okay cool! Thanks @danielskatz

[arfon]

@pranftw – many thanks for your submission to JOSS. Unfortunately this submission has been judged out of scope by the JOSS editorial team for two main reasons:

1. The creation of this tool looks to be a learning exercise which would make this an educational tool rather than a research software package.
2. This tool fails our substantial scholarly effort criterion as it fails to contribute significant capabilities beyond what is already possible with existing tools. In our submission criteria we state:

Your software should be a significant contribution to the available open source software that either enables some new research challenges to be addressed or makes addressing research challenges significantly better (e.g., faster, easier, simpler).

One possible alternative to JOSS is to follow GitHub's guide on how to create a permanent archive and DOI for your software. This DOI can then be used by others to cite your work.

[arfon]

@editorialbot reject

[editorialbot]

Paper rejected.