Closed editorialbot closed 10 months 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
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.12 s (886.6 files/s, 223445.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JavaScript 4 2099 1928 7019
HTML 46 1640 146 6789
XML 6 0 129 1929
R 29 203 621 1097
Jupyter Notebook 1 0 104 500
Markdown 5 202 0 500
Rmd 8 335 570 480
TeX 1 34 4 297
YAML 3 1 4 71
SVG 1 0 1 11
CSS 1 0 0 1
JSON 1 0 0 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 106 4514 3507 18695
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 4834
Failed to discover a Statement of need
section in paper
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.17605/OSF.IO/SFXA2 is OK
- 10.17605/OSF.IO/KS325 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1162/comj_a_00002 may be a valid DOI for title: Investigations of between-hand synchronization in Magaloff’s Chopin
- 10.18061/1811/51203 may be a valid DOI for title: Inter-group entrainment in Afro-Brazilian Congado ritual
- 10.1109/icassp.2014.6854953 may be a valid DOI for title: Improved musical onset detection with convolutional neural networks
- 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02232 may be a valid DOI for title: Analyzing multivariate dynamics using cross-recurrence quantification analysis (CRQA), diagonal-cross-recurrence profiles (dcrp), and multidimensional recurrence quantification analysis (MDRQA)–a tutorial in R
- 10.1177/0305735614555790 may be a valid DOI for title: Timing deviations in jazz performance: The relationships of selected musical variables on horizontal and vertical timing relations: A case study
- 10.1109/lsp.2020.3045915 may be a valid DOI for title: Adversarial unsupervised domain adaptation for harmonic-percussive source separation
- 10.1145/2660168.2660182 may be a valid DOI for title: Creating corpora for computational research in Arab-Andalusian music
- 10.1109/icassp.2016.7471640 may be a valid DOI for title: A generalized bayesian model for tracking long metrical cycles in acoustic music signals
- 10.1098/rsif.2013.1125 may be a valid DOI for title: Optimal feedback correction in string quartet synchronization
- 10.3758/s13423-012-0371-2 may be a valid DOI for title: Sensorimotor synchronization: a review of recent research (2006–2012)
- 10.3758/bf03206433 may be a valid DOI for title: Sensorimotor synchronization: A review of the tapping literature
- 10.3389/fnins.2016.00285 may be a valid DOI for title: Both isochronous and non-isochronous metrical subdivision afford precise and stable ensemble entrainment: A corpus study of Malian jembe drumming
- 10.1016/j.humov.2008.02.016 may be a valid DOI for title: Sensorimotor synchronization with adaptively timed sequences
INVALID DOIs
- http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171520 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864919844809 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- http://dx.doi.org/10.18061/emr.v16i1.7555 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- http://dx.doi.org/10.18061/emr.v16i1.7555 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
👋🏼 @tuomaseerola @pmcharrison, @mrocamora 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#5395
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 (@faroit) if you have any questions/concerns.
Typos in this sentence:
These collection contain tens of hours annotated and verified
Typo here:
a processes occurring within 100-2000 ms timescales
Wrong citation format here:
Some datasets such as Chopin performances compiled by (Goebl et al., 2010)
Wrong citation format here:
commonly been studied with tapping experiments Repp & Su (2013)
Wrong citation format here:
A number of different measures of synchrony have been proposed. We follow the definitions 54 from (Clayton et al., 2020, p. 161)
Eq. 1: sum symbol should say i
Eq. 3: why not use d_i
abbreviation here?
Eq. 3: T
has not been defined yet
Eq. 4: why has T
now been changed to n
? Same in Eq. 5
Eq. 4: i=i
should be i=1
, same in Eq. 5
Eq. 5: isn't this the same as d bar, used in Eq. 2? If so, use the same symbol for both?
Eq. 6: shouldn't the intro to this equation say onset time v
instead of onset time w
?
Eq. 8: i=i
should be i=1
.
I'm also not sure what the subscript r
means here.
which is usually the relevant approach in music sense.
doesn't seem like idiomatic English.
Typo here:
In order to be able to build the carry out such comparisons
Wrong citation formats:
see (Schlüter & Böck, 2014) and (Böck et al., 2016), and for a full workflow of how to combine onset detection and annotation of the musical information, see (Clayton, Tarsitani, et al., 2021).
three first are meta-data
grammatical typo, but also I think the correct number is two
Table 2: it seems unfortunate that SD is used as a column name, because most readers will think this denotes standard deviation. Probably it's too late to change now though
Typo:
As a broad overview, we can use the function plot_by_beat visualise the asynchrony relative to
For example, in many genres different instruments contribute to specific subdivision of the beat.
subdivision should be plural.
Need to be consistent about whether you write [a]synchronization or [a]synchronisation
'granger' should be capitalised
Regarding this checklist point,
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
I could not see any automated tests, but maybe I am missing them?
Regarding this checklist point,
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
I could not see any, but maybe I am missing them?
Regarding this checklist point,
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
I could not see any comparison, but maybe I missed it.
There is a typo in this reference:
Müller m, Wiering f, Editors.
and this one:
A generalized bayesian
@tuomaseerola I have gone through the paper and it generally looks good, I think the functionality is appealing and I particularly like the visualisation side. I can see that the pipeline would work very well for future researchers in that the input data format is quite general and once you have in that format it's very easy to apply your code to it.
The paper is a bit long for JOSS format but I think it works to have those detailed examples (I didn't check whether it exceeds the 1,000 word limit, it's probably close). There were quite a few typographical issues and I think the draft could do with some detailed proofing to complement what I was able to spot. I have made detailed individual comments above.
Regarding COIs, I declare that I participated in the Interpersonal Entrainment in Music Performance (IEMP) project, which took place from 2016 to 2018. I worked on preparing Uruguayan candombe data for the IEMP collection in collaboration with Luis Jure, Simone Tarsitani, and Martin Clayton. I also discussed and explored approaches for precise onset extraction from audio recordings with Martin Clayton and Tuomas Eerola. However, I think I can make an impartial assessment of the work presented to JOSS, whose focus is the analysis of onsets to assess musical synchrony.
Wrong citation format here:
with tapping experiments Repp & Su (2013)
Here we first define the onset time differences, 𝑑, ...
Then, in the definition of the precision measures, the term "asynchronies" (or "asynchrony values") is used for d, instead of "onset time differences". So I suggest: "Here we first define the onset time differences (or asynchronies), 𝑑, ..."
Eq. 1: Add summation limits.
Eq. 3: According to (Clayton et al., 2020, p. 161), its "the RMS of the pair-wise measurements" of asynchronies. So I guess it should be $I{1,i} - I{2,i}$ or just $d_i$. Besides, what $T$ stands for should be clarified.
Eq. 4 and 5: Summation starts at $i=1$ Eq.4: I suggest using $|\bar{s}|$ instead of $|\hat{s}|$ to be consistent with the use of $\bar{d}$ in Eq. 2.
Eq. 5: Seems that $\bar{d}$ should be used instead of $\hat{s_p}$ (as in Eq. 2). I don't see where the $p$ comes from (pairwise? if this is the case, note that it is not used in Eq. 2).
Mean relative asynchrony : mean position of an instrument’s onsets relative to average position $(\hat{\omega})$ of the group, ...
The position of an instrument's onsets was previously notated as $I$ ($I{1,i}$ and $I{2,i}$ in Eq. 1). I suggest using a consistent notation for onsets. Besides, I also suggest using $\bar{w}$ instead of $\hat{w}$, as previously done in Eq. 2.
and the relative onset time $w$ is
Should be $v$ instead of $w$.
Eq. 7: It seems that $n$ should be $i$.
Eq. 8: I suggest using $\bar{s_r}$ instead of $\hat{s_r}$.
which is usually the relevant approach in music sense.
This assertion could be backed up by citing some relevant references.
In order to be able to build the carry out such comparisons, ...
There is a typo in this sentence, and it is not clear to what comparisons it refers to (see previous sentence).
(e.g. Librosa, Essentia, or MIR toolbox for Matlab, or Sonic Visualiser using well-known onset detection algorithms.
There is an extra "or" and the closing parenthesis is missing.
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@tuomaseerola<!--end-author-handle-- (Tuomas Eerola) Repository: https://github.com/tuomaseerola/onsetsync Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): master Version: 0.5.1 Editor: !--editor-->@faroit<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @pmcharrison, @mrocamora Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10050346
Status
Status badge code:
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
@pmcharrison & @mrocamora, 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:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @faroit 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 @mrocamora
📝 Checklist for @pmcharrison