[PRE REVIEW]: Spikeometric - Linear Non-Linear Cascade Spiking Neural Networks with PyTorch Geometric

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@lepmik<!--end-author-handle-- (Mikkel Elle Lepperød) Repository: https://github.com/bioAI-Oslo/Spikeometric Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper Version: v1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@jbytecode<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @clinssen, @Saran-nns Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9016e77f4fd1bb880dcebbe79361f948"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9016e77f4fd1bb880dcebbe79361f948/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9016e77f4fd1bb880dcebbe79361f948/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9016e77f4fd1bb880dcebbe79361f948)

Author instructions

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

@lepmik 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=0.12 s (552.3 files/s, 55736.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          27            414            980           1377
Jupyter Notebook                 5              0           1846            505
reStructuredText                23            297            421            369
TeX                              1              8              0            106
YAML                             4             11              7             63
Markdown                         2             18              0             51
TOML                             1              3              0             29
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            65            763           3262           2535
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 773

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/s41593-020-0699-2 is OK
- 10.3389/fnsys.2016.00109 is OK
- 10.1017/CBO9781107447615 is OK
- 10.1038/nature07140 is OK
- 10.4249/scholarpedia.1343 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1088/0954-898x_15_4_002 may be a valid DOI for title: Maximum likelihood estimation of cascade point-process neural encoding models

INVALID DOIs

- 8.1101/463760 is INVALID

[editorialbot]

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

[lepmik]

Hi, my suggestion for reviewers are:

Outside list:

1. Hans Ekkehard Plesser: hans.ekkehard.plesser@nmbu.no
2. Espen Hagen: espenhgn@gmail.com

From list (arbitrary order):

1. rougier
2. ionlights
3. djsaunde
4. TomDonoghue
5. ryEllison
6. mstimberg
7. clinssen
8. john-s-butler-dit
9. saran-nns
10. pausz
11. jegp

[arfon]

@editorialbot query scope

@lepmik – I'm going to put this submission through a scope review to solicit the opinion of the wider editorial team on whether this is in scope for JOSS.

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[lepmik]

@arfon thank you for considering our submission, have you had a chance to perform the scope review yet?

[arfon]

Apologies for the delay. Yes, the scope review is complete. We just need to find an editor now :-)

[arfon]

@editorialbot invite @jbytecode as editor

👋 @jbytecode – would you be willing to edit this submission for JOSS?

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[jbytecode]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

@arfon - of course, thank you!

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @jbytecode is now the editor

[jbytecode]

👋👋👋 Dear @rougier and @TomDonoghue 👋👋👋

Would you be willing to assist in reviewing this submission for JOSS (Journal of Open Source Software)?

JOSS publishes articles about open source research software. The submission I'd like you to review is titled: "Spikeometric - Linear Non-Linear Cascade Spiking Neural Networks with PyTorch Geometric". You can find more information at the top of this Github issue (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5207).

The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. If you have any questions please let me know.

This is the pre-review issue. After setting at least 2 reviewers we will start the review process in a separate thread. In that thread, there will be 23 check items for each single reviewer.

Thank you in advance!

[TomDonoghue]

@jbytecode - thanks for the invitation - I think this one might be a bit outside of my area of expertise, as I don't have much hands-on experience with this kind of neural network model, so probably someone else would be a better reviewer for this one.

[jbytecode]

@TomDonoghue - thank you for the quick response!

[jbytecode]

👋👋👋 Dear @clinssen 👋👋👋

Would you be willing to assist in reviewing this submission for JOSS (Journal of Open Source Software)?

JOSS publishes articles about open source research software. The submission I'd like you to review is titled: "Spikeometric - Linear Non-Linear Cascade Spiking Neural Networks with PyTorch Geometric". You can find more information at the top of this Github issue (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5207).

The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. If you have any questions please let me know.

This is the pre-review issue. After setting at least 2 reviewers we will start the review process in a separate thread. In that thread, there will be 23 check items for each single reviewer.

Thank you in advance!

[clinssen]

Hi, thank you for asking! I would be happy to review this but due to attendance at a summer school I will only have time for it in week 20. Would that be OK?

[jbytecode]

@clinssen - Average review time of JOSS submissions is 4-6 weeks and we can extend the limits by 1-2 weeks. Reviews are interactive and we don't expect to receive a final report and decision at the end. The review starts whenever we assign two reviewers. Please ping me for your decision. Thank you in advance.

[clinssen]

Cool, I would be happy to do the review!

[jbytecode]

@editorialbot add @clinssen as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@clinssen added to the reviewers list!

[jbytecode]

👋👋👋 Dear @john-s-butler-dit 👋👋👋

Would you be willing to assist in reviewing this submission for JOSS (Journal of Open Source Software)?

JOSS publishes articles about open source research software. The submission I'd like you to review is titled: "Spikeometric - Linear Non-Linear Cascade Spiking Neural Networks with PyTorch Geometric". You can find more information at the top of this Github issue (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5207).

The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. If you have any questions please let me know.

This is the pre-review issue. After setting at least 2 reviewers we will start the review process in a separate thread. In that thread, there will be 23 check items for each single reviewer.

Thank you in advance!

[rougier]

Sorry for late answer but I'm a bit crawling under reviews and I won't be able to do this one. You can remind me in 2 weeks if you did not find second reviewer.

[jbytecode]

👋👋👋 Dear @saran-nns 👋👋👋

Would you be willing to assist in reviewing this submission for JOSS (Journal of Open Source Software)?

JOSS publishes articles about open source research software. The submission I'd like you to review is titled: "Spikeometric - Linear Non-Linear Cascade Spiking Neural Networks with PyTorch Geometric". You can find more information at the top of this Github issue (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5207).

The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. If you have any questions please let me know.

This is the pre-review issue. After setting at least 2 reviewers we will start the review process in a separate thread. In that thread, there will be 23 check items for each single reviewer.

Thank you in advance!

[Saran-nns]

yes, i am happy to review this submission

[jbytecode]

@editorialbot add @Saran-nns as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@Saran-nns added to the reviewers list!

[jbytecode]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5451.