[REVIEW]: Carnival: JVM Property graph data unification toolkit

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@hjwilli@majensen<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @kinow, @KonradHoeffner Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/77c829339608b3faaa92cc1baa7a012c"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/77c829339608b3faaa92cc1baa7a012c/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/77c829339608b3faaa92cc1baa7a012c/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/77c829339608b3faaa92cc1baa7a012c)

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

@kinow & @KonradHoeffner, 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:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @majensen 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 @KonradHoeffner

📝 Checklist for @kinow

editorialbot commented 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

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.21 s (990.7 files/s, 169519.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Groovy                         146           7463           5945          16706
Markdown                        35            912              0           2170
Gradle                           7            184            211            598
YAML                            10             18              8            139
XML                              2             49             25            120
Bourne Shell                     1             27            108             99
TeX                              1              5              0             82
DOS Batch                        1             21              2             66
RAML                             1             10              1             59
Dockerfile                       1             15             10             25
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           205           8704           6310          20064
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 1101

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-662-46641-4_40 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 is OK
- 10.3233/SHTI190178 is OK
- 10.1016/j.yjbinx.2020.100086 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

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:

KonradHoeffner commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @KonradHoeffner

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/carnival-data/carnival?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@hjwilli) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

kinow commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @kinow

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/carnival-data/carnival?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@hjwilli) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

kinow commented 1 year ago

Hi @majensen , @hjwilli

I've partially finished my review. I created issues in the Carnival source code repository, linking to this issue. I marked the items I've completed in my review as done, in my checklist :point_up: All the pending items are being mentioned in the issues I created.

@hjwilli feel free to ping me on any of those issues to discuss or suggest some fixes :+1: As we progress with those issues, I'll update my checklist and hopefully my review should be completed as soon as the issues are resolved.

Thanks! -Bruno

hjwilli commented 1 year ago

Thanks @kinow, the team has started working on the issues you've raised and you should see some updates soon!

KonradHoeffner commented 1 year ago

The code has 13 commits by Hayden Freedman, who is not on the author list. On the other hand the author list includes Louis Lee, who does not seem to be a contributor to the codebase. Finally Christian Stoeckert only has a single commit where one word in the readme seems to have changed. Can you explain the choice of authors?

majensen commented 1 year ago

@hjwilli could you comment on the concern raised by @KonradHoeffner at https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5117#issuecomment-1415997159?

majensen commented 1 year ago

Hello @hjwilli - can you give us a progress update in this thread? Thanks very much -

hjwilli commented 1 year ago

Hi @majensen, thank you for your patience. My team is still in the process of making updates to the paper and codebase based on feedback and hopes to address most of the issues in the next few weeks.

For the author list, Christian Stoeckert is an ontology expert who has been key collaborator in the development of Carnival for the lifetime of the project and has directly contributed to the paper and should be included as an author. Louis Lee is a newer member of the team who has participated software design process for carnival and the paper and has make significant contributions to the demo application for this submission and should be included as an author. Hayden is no longer an active member of the group but has make significant contributions to the codebase and we are reaching out to them for inclusion.

KonradHoeffner commented 1 year ago

@hjwilli: Yes, please definitely do include Hayden then, as required by the ethics guidelines:

all significant contributors should be included in the author list

majensen commented 1 year ago

@hjwilli - how are your responses coming along?

KonradHoeffner commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

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:

KonradHoeffner commented 1 year ago

@hjwilli Hayden is still not included in the author list in the newest version (see comments above).

hjwilli commented 1 year ago

Thanks for the feedback and your patience as we work through this. Hayden has now been added.

kinow commented 1 year ago

I left one question in https://github.com/carnival-data/carnival/issues/105#issuecomment-1546936916. Other than that I think all my issues were addressed by @hjwilli and team. Once we have handled that one, my review will be completed :+1: Thanks!

KonradHoeffner commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

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:

majensen commented 1 year ago

Thanks all for persisting on this review. @kinow - it looks like there is only one checkbox (reproducibility) left open on your checklist - any comments in this regard?

kinow commented 1 year ago

Hi @majensen ,

I think I have one issue open pending response in their repository: https://github.com/carnival-data/carnival/issues/105

I'm waiting until the issues I created are resolved, and then I'll check the last box and finish my review (the one linked above is about use cases/docs/maybe a little repro, so I left that unchecked)

majensen commented 1 year ago

Thanks @kinow - @hjwilli please see above comment

KonradHoeffner commented 1 year ago

Status report

I have two leftover open issues in their repository:

[ ] https://github.com/carnival-data/carnival/issues/123 (major)
[x] https://github.com/carnival-data/carnival/issues/122 (minor)

majensen commented 1 year ago

@hjwilli - it has been a while - have you been able to address @KonradHoeffner 's issue in this comment? Thanks

KonradHoeffner commented 12 months ago

Just noticed that this issue is still open, is the review still active? Is there anything I can do?

majensen commented 10 months ago

@KonradHoeffner sorry, coming back to this. @hjwilli are you still actively working? Please let us know here. If we don't hear back by end of next week, then I will put the review on pause.

hjwilli commented 9 months ago

Hello @KonradHoeffner and @majensen, thank you for your patience. This is still an active project, we will work on addressing @KonradHoeffner and @kinow remaining issues in the next few weeks.

majensen commented 9 months ago

Thanks for the update @hjwilli, standing by.

majensen commented 7 months ago

@hjwilli - how are your revisions coming along? Looking forward to hearing back. Thanks!

majensen commented 6 months ago

@hjwilli looking forward to your revisions. Thanks!

majensen commented 6 months ago

@hjwilli I will put the "paused" tag on this submission. Please let me know here when you want to restart the review. Thanks

crvernon commented 5 months ago

:wave: @majensen - we have hit the 1 month evaluation period for this paused submission. Could you see if this is something that needs to be withdrawn and resubmitted when ready at this point? Thanks so much!

majensen commented 5 months ago

@hjwilli - since is has been about 5 months since hearing from you in this thread, and we have been paused for one month, I will need to withdraw the paper from current consideration by next Friday. I will be happy to unpause and continue the review if you get back to us before then. Should we proceed to withdraw, you are welcome to resubmit the paper when you are ready. Thanks for your understanding; I am happy to answer any questions.

majensen commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot remind me in one week

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

Reminder set for @majensen in one week

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

:wave: @majensen, please take a look at the state of the submission (this is an automated reminder).

hjwilli commented 5 months ago

Hi @majensen, thank you for your follow up with this. I would like to request a continuation of the review so we can address the last few outstanding issues this month. Thank you.

majensen commented 5 months ago

Ok @hjwilli, I will remove the paused tag and look forward to your updates.

crvernon commented 4 months ago

@majensen - please check in on this one regularly to get it across the finish line. Thank you!

majensen commented 4 months ago

@crvernon aye sir.

@hjwilli - Please give us a progress report.

majensen commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot remind me every 5 days

majensen commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot remind me in 5 days

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

Reminder set for @majensen in 5 days

kinow commented 4 months ago

@hjwilli has addressed my last point about reproducibility, and also updated the text in a part where it mentioned reasoning (that statement was deleted). Found on possible typo in a commit text (an extra "with" in the text), so left a note there for @hjwilli . Otherwise, looks good! @majensen , I have finished my review. Thank you.

hjwilli commented 4 months ago

Hi @crvernon, I've made changes to address the open issues raised by @kinow (https://github.com/carnival-data/carnival/issues/105), and one of the issues by @KonradHoeffner (https://github.com/carnival-data/carnival/issues/122). These should now be resolved. Working through addressing https://github.com/carnival-data/carnival/issues/123.

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

:wave: @majensen, please take a look at the state of the submission (this is an automated reminder).

majensen commented 4 months ago

Thanks @hjwilli - can you give me a ping here when you are ready?

openjournals / joss-reviews