search

openjournals / joss-reviews

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

[PRE REVIEW]: ms3: A parser for MuseScore files, serving as data factory for annotated music corpora #5112

Closed editorialbot closed 1 year ago

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@johentsch<!--end-author-handle-- (Johannes Hentschel) Repository: https://github.com/johentsch/ms3 Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss_paper Version: 1.1.2 Editor: !--editor-->@faroit<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @TGabor, @allorens Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/484973fd7bd83f0f118e4f229c63d5ee"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/484973fd7bd83f0f118e4f229c63d5ee/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/484973fd7bd83f0f118e4f229c63d5ee/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/484973fd7bd83f0f118e4f229c63d5ee)

Author instructions

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

@johentsch 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 1 year 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 1 year ago 
Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=1.31 s (87.8 files/s, 244306.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XML                             14             17              0         248840
HTML                            27           3442             25          34056
Python                          37           2412           7061          13853
CSS                              3           1209             42           2102
reStructuredText                13           1200            995           1692
JavaScript                       9            280            558           1494
TeX                              1             20              0            185
make                             1             31              7            155
Markdown                         4             16              0             98
JSON                             3              0              0             68
YAML                             1              1              4             18
INI                              1              2              0             15
Bourne Shell                     1              0              0              1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           115           8630           8692         302577
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 573

editorialbot commented 1 year ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.5334/tismir.63 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.5624417 is OK
- 10.18061/1811/21901 is OK
- 10.1525/mp.2013.31.1.68 is OK
- 10.5075/epfl-thesis-9808 is OK
- 10.3389/fdigh.2018.00016 is OK
- 10.17605/OSF.IO/CB26R is OK
- 10.1080/10588167.2017.1404301 is OK
- 10.1080/17459737.2012.704154 is OK
- 10.1080/17459737.2012.694710 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.2307/895496 may be a valid DOI for title: Music Notation: A Manual of Modern Practice

INVALID DOIs

- None
editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

arfon commented 1 year ago

@johentsch - 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!

johentsch commented 1 year ago

Thanks @arfon.

MISSING DOIs

  • 10.2307/895496 may be a valid DOI for title: Music Notation: A Manual of Modern Practice

To save everyone's time: the DOI suggested by the bot is a book review.

faroit commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot assign @faroit as editor

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Assigned! @faroit is now the editor

faroit commented 1 year ago

👋 Hi @johentsch, thanks for your submission to JOSS! I will be serving as the editor for this. We'll use this issue to identify reviewers and resolve technical issues.

As this toolbox deals with a software useful for music information retrieval research it would be great to have reviewers with domain knowledge. I already asked @TGabor, if he could serve as a reviewer.

Furthermore, @johentsch, I am also interested in your input on potential other reviewers so any suggestions you have are also welcome. For this, please check the JOSS COI policy and mention them with a space between the @ and their handle or as a codeblock (so you would refer to me as @faroit).

johentsch commented 1 year ago

Furthermore, @johentsch, I am also interested in your input on potential other reviewers so any suggestions you have are also welcome.

Thanks, @faroit! I'm suggesting @ napulen, @ malcolmsailor, and @ allorens who are all in the same field.

faroit commented 1 year ago

👋 @napulen @malcolmsailor @allorens - would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The JOSS review process takes place on GitHub and focuses on the software and a short paper. We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

The software under review is ms3.

This issue is a "pre-review" issue in which reviewers are assigned. Once sufficient reviewers are recruited we will open a dedicated review issue where the review will take place.

faroit commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot add @TGabor as reviewer

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

@TGabor added to the reviewers list!

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

I'm sorry @allorens, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do.

allorens commented 1 year ago

Hi @faroit I'm happy to act as reviewer

johentsch commented 1 year ago

please check the JOSS COI policy and mention them with a space between the @ and their handle or as a codeblock

Sorry, I had not been very thorough in following your instructions and have now removed the mentions from my previous answer. Also, I have read the COI policy more carefully and have to admit that @allorens might have been a premature suggestion because we are currently preparing a publication together (thanks for volunteering, Ana!). I thought she would be suited because ms3 was used in her last research project. The decision will be @faroit's but I think it's appropriate to bring this up.

malcolmsailor commented 1 year ago

Hi @faroit I'm open to acting as a reviewer but first I'd like to get some idea what the time frame for completing the review would be.

I also feel I should mention that I know and like @johentsch from corresponding with him by email frequently about our mutual projects and (once) via Zoom. I don't know if that rises to the level of a conflict of interest, but I wanted to disclose it.

faroit commented 1 year ago

@malcolmsailor We usually aim for completing initial reviews within 4-6 weeks.

I also feel I should mention that I know and like @johentsch from corresponding with him by email frequently about our mutual projects and (once) via Zoom. I don't know if that rises to the level of a conflict of interest, but I wanted to disclose it.

I don't think this is a conflict of interest but since @allorens already has responded (sorry I just saw it now), I would go with first-come-first-serve and I'm happy to ask you next time, @malcolmsailor :-)

faroit commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot add @allorens as reviewer

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

@allorens added to the reviewers list!

napulen commented 1 year ago

Hello, not sure what's the target number of reviewers here. I am unfortunately reviewing two articles at the moment and can't confidently commit to another one. Based on the scope of this submission, I think @fosfrancesco or @pramoneda would be suitable reviewers (provided they can/are willing to).

faroit commented 1 year ago

@napulen we are good on reviewers. Thanks for your help

faroit commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot start review

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5195.

faroit commented 1 year ago

@johentsch sorry if it looked like to be a slow response time. One of the reviewers I wanted to have on board @TGabor wasn't available earlier (and still will only able to finish the review end of march). Thanks for your patience.