search

openjournals / joss-reviews

Reviews for the Journal of Open Source Software
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
694 stars 36 forks source link

[REVIEW]: PDF Entity Annotation Tool (PEAT) #5336

Open editorialbot opened 1 year ago

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@chrstahl<!--end-author-handle-- (Christopher Stahl) Repository: https://github.com/USEPA/peat Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper Version: v1.0.1 Editor: !--editor-->@atrisovic<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @flor14, @RuneBlaze Archive: Pending

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e9f377be673455715a5986a5c4fb7204"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e9f377be673455715a5986a5c4fb7204/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e9f377be673455715a5986a5c4fb7204/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e9f377be673455715a5986a5c4fb7204)

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

@bioedd & @puruckertom, 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 @atrisovic 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 @RuneBlaze

atrisovic commented 3 months ago

Hi All, that is wonderful, we are almost there.

Hi @flor14, your comments should now be incorporated, could you finalize your review in the next days? Thank you all!

flor14 commented 3 months ago

Sorry, I wasn't following in detail. I will have a look asap. Thanks.

atrisovic commented 2 months ago

Hello @flor14, I hope all is well. Just a gentle reminder about the paper PDF Entity Annotation Tool (PEAT). Thank you for your efforts!

crvernon commented 1 month ago

:wave: @atrisovic - could you see if we can email @flor14 to get things wrapped up? Otherwise, we may have to assign another reviewer to get this one completed ASAP. Let me know if you need anything. Thanks.

atrisovic commented 1 month ago

Hi @crvernon , thank you for writing. I sent a reminder to @flor14 over email.

flor14 commented 1 month ago

Hello

Sorry for the late reply. I did my review a while ago when I had more available time. Now it has been difficult to find time for this.

There are some inconsistencies in the citations, particularly the software citations. In the article as it stands, in the reference section says:

spaCy. (2022). In GitHub repository. explosion. https://github.com/explosion/spaCy

and when you enter the repository, in the section cite this repository, you will find:

Honnibal, M., Montani, I., Van Landeghem, S., & Boyd, A. (2020). spaCy: Industrial-strength Natural Language Processing in Python. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1212303

This should be changed in the references section and in the article's text for all the software citations.

I think it is important to correctly credit the software developers, especially in a journal like JOSS.

chrstahl commented 3 weeks ago

@flor14 https://github.com/USEPA/peat/pull/7 should fix the citations. Is there anything else to finish out the review?

atrisovic commented 6 days ago

Hi All, it seems we are almost done with the second review - @flor14 please let us know if you have any more suggestions. Your help is much appreciated!