[REVIEW]: Regl-Scatterplot: A Scalable Interactive JavaScript-based Scatter Plot Library

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@flekschas@fabian-s<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @Fil, @xiaohk Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7796642

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f856311196a1e2977a0109730435f42f"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f856311196a1e2977a0109730435f42f/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f856311196a1e2977a0109730435f42f/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f856311196a1e2977a0109730435f42f)

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

@Fil & @xioahk, 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 @fabian-s 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 @xiaohk

📝 Checklist for @Fil

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=0.14 s (336.3 files/s, 251157.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JSON                             3              0              0          22265
JavaScript                      31           1694            633           8453
Markdown                         3            415              0           1069
HTML                             1             73              0            576
TeX                              1             31              0            246
TypeScript                       1             21             10            186
YAML                             4             10              4             96
F#                               4             18              2             44
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            48           2262            649          32935
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 851

fabian-s commented 1 year ago

👋🏼 @flekschas @Fil @xiaohk this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

As a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering

@editorialbot generate my checklist

as the top of a new comment in this thread.

These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#5275 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if any of you require some more time. We can also use EditorialBot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@fabian-s) if you have any questions/concerns.

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1111/cgf.13971 is OK
- 10.1145/3334480.3381443 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2021.3114820 is OK
- 10.1145/3491102.3502102 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2022.3209378 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2017.2674978 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2011.185 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2016.2599030 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1708.07747 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1802.03426 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1312.6114 is OK
- 10.1080/14786440109462720 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:

xiaohk commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate my checklist

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

@xiaohk I can't do that because you are not a reviewer

fabian-s commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot add @xiaohk as reviewer

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

@xiaohk added to the reviewers list!

fabian-s commented 1 year ago

.. should work now, I hope @xiaohk sorry again! :see_no_evil:

fabian-s commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot remove @xioahk as reviewer

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

@xioahk removed from the reviewers list!

xiaohk commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @xiaohk

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/flekschas/regl-scatterplot?
[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 (@flekschas) 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?

Fil commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @Fil

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/flekschas/regl-scatterplot?
[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 (@flekschas) 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?

xiaohk commented 1 year ago

I finished my review. All items on my check list are checked out. I noticed a minor stying issue in the reference list (https://github.com/flekschas/regl-scatterplot/issues/109). I think the paper is ready to be accepted after that issue is resolved. Thanks!

xiaohk commented 1 year ago

Hi @fabian-s, all my issues were addressed in https://github.com/flekschas/regl-scatterplot/pull/110/. I think this paper is ready to go!

fabian-s commented 1 year ago

Thank you all for your quick and constructive collaboration on this!

fabian-s commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot check references

fabian-s commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1111/cgf.13971 is OK
- 10.1145/3334480.3381443 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2021.3114820 is OK
- 10.1145/3491102.3502102 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2022.3209378 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2017.2674978 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2011.185 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2016.2599030 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1708.07747 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1802.03426 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1312.6114 is OK
- 10.1080/14786440109462720 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- 10.1145/3544548.3581268 is INVALID

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:

fabian-s commented 1 year ago

@flekschas

At this point could you:

[x] Fix/remove the invalid DOI for the "Zeno" paper and run "check references" again to verify the change

Then:

[x] Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here.
[x] Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g., figshare, an institutional repository)
[x] Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) has the correct metadata. This includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it). You may also add the authors' ORCID.
[x] Please list the DOI of the archived version here.

I can then move forward with recommending acceptance of the submission.

flekschas commented 1 year ago

@fabian-s

I assume that the invalid DOI of the Zeno paper is due to the fact that the paper is just about to get released and doi.org is fairly slow at updating its database. I double checked the DOI (10.1145/3544548.3581268) and it matches the author's bibtex listed at https://zenoml.com/about and the related DOI of their preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.04732.

Shall I move forward removing the DOI anyway?

fabian-s commented 1 year ago

aaah, thx for the clarification, I hadn't realized this is still pre-publication. let's leave it as is, then.

flekschas commented 1 year ago

Okay sounds good! I'll prepare the other bits then. :)

flekschas commented 1 year ago

The tagged version is v1.6.3 and it's archived at Zenode with doi 10.5281/zenodo.7796642.

fabian-s 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:

fabian-s commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot set v1.6.3 as version

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Done! version is now v1.6.3

fabian-s commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7796642 as archive

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7796642

fabian-s commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

EiCs: note that the "invalid" DOI editorialbot complains about is valid but refers to a document that is not yet published / updated in the DOI.org database

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:warning: Error preparing paper acceptance. The generated XML metadata file is invalid.

Element isbn: [facet 'minLength'] The value has a length of '2'; this underruns the allowed minimum length of '10'.
Element isbn: [facet 'pattern'] The value '04' is not accepted by the pattern '(97(8|9)-)?\d[\d \-]+[\dX]'.

fabian-s commented 1 year ago

@xiaohk @Fil many many thanks for your quick and constructive reviews! JOSS relies on volunteers like you and we're very grateful for your efforts.

@flekschas Thanks for your quick and responsive handling of the reviewer inputs and congratulations!

flekschas commented 1 year ago

Many thanks also from my side to @xiaohk and @Fil for their reviews and @fabian-s for handlig the editorial aspects. 🙏

@fabian-s is there anything I can help with regarding the XML metadata generation error?

fabian-s commented 1 year ago

@openjournals/csism-eics no idea what to do about this XML metadata issue, plz halp?

flekschas commented 1 year ago

@fabian-s Could you make the editorialbot try it again? I've removed the ISBN numbers from two references, which I suspect might have been incorrect. The authors, title, year, journal, publisher, DOI, etc. should suffice.

fabian-s commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot check references

fabian-s 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:

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1111/cgf.13971 is OK
- 10.1145/3334480.3381443 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2021.3114820 is OK
- 10.1145/3491102.3502102 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2022.3209378 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2017.2674978 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2011.185 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2016.2599030 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1708.07747 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1802.03426 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1312.6114 is OK
- 10.1080/14786440109462720 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- 10.1145/3544548.3581268 is INVALID

fabian-s commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

EiCs: note that the "invalid" DOI editorialbot complains about is valid but refers to a document that is not yet published / updated in the DOI.org database

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:wave: @openjournals/csism-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof :point_right::page_facing_up: Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/4109, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1111/cgf.13971 is OK
- 10.1145/3334480.3381443 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2021.3114820 is OK
- 10.1145/3491102.3502102 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2022.3209378 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2017.2674978 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2011.185 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2016.2599030 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1708.07747 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1802.03426 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1312.6114 is OK
- 10.1080/14786440109462720 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- 10.1145/3544548.3581268 is INVALID

fabian-s commented 1 year ago

@fabian-s Could you make the editorialbot try it again? I've removed the ISBN numbers from two references, which I suspect might have been incorrect. The authors, title, year, journal, publisher, DOI, etc. should suffice.

thx, that seems to have done the trick :+1:

fabian-s commented 1 year ago

EiCs: note that the "invalid" DOI editorialbot complains about is valid but refers to a document that is not yet published / updated in the DOI.org database

openjournals / joss-reviews