search

openjournals / joss-reviews

Reviews for the Journal of Open Source Software
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
725 stars 38 forks source link

[PRE REVIEW]: Tashaphyne: A Python package for Arabic Light Stemming #5425

Closed editorialbot closed 1 year ago

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@linuxscout<!--end-author-handle-- (Taha Zerrouki) Repository: https://github.com/linuxscout/tashaphyne/ Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper Version: 0.3.6 Editor: !--editor-->@samhforbes<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @SamHames, @kikarimullah Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1a0fa400d66d39bf17bd51bef0b5c1a7"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1a0fa400d66d39bf17bd51bef0b5c1a7/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1a0fa400d66d39bf17bd51bef0b5c1a7/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1a0fa400d66d39bf17bd51bef0b5c1a7)

Author instructions

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

@linuxscout 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 commented 1 year ago

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 commented 1 year ago 
Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=1.27 s (39.3 files/s, 138002.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          21            323          22635         138700
XML                              1              0              0           5860
HTML                            15            277            217           4949
reStructuredText                 2            140            213            500
TeX                              1             48              0            445
Markdown                         2             87              0            258
JavaScript                       1             17             27            249
CSS                              1             20            124            178
make                             2             10             11             36
DOS Batch                        2              8              1             27
YAML                             2              1              5             22
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            50            931          23233         151224
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 999

editorialbot commented 1 year ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1177/0165551519849516 is OK
- 10.5121/ijnlc.2016.5301 is OK
- 10.1109/ACLing.2015.11 is OK
- 10.1145/2481492.2481507 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04886 is OK
- 10.32604/cmc.2021.016155 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.5121/ijdkp.2016.6602 may be a valid DOI for title: Improved microblog classification for detecting abusive arabic twitter accounts
- 10.1109/aiccsa.2014.7073192 may be a valid DOI for title: Subjectivity and sentiment analysis of Arabic: trends and challenges
- 10.1016/j.ipm.2018.07.006 may be a valid DOI for title: A comprehensive survey of arabic sentiment analysis
- 10.1007/978-3-030-21902-4_1 may be a valid DOI for title: Wajeez: An Extractive Automatic Arabic Text Summarisation System
- 10.1145/3106426.3109052 may be a valid DOI for title: Arabic ontology learning using deep learning
- 10.1109/access.2019.2903331 may be a valid DOI for title: A Study of the Effects of Stemming Strategies on Arabic Document Classification
- 10.14569/ijacsa.2019.0100234 may be a valid DOI for title: Sentiment Analysis of Arabic Jordanian Dialect Tweets
- 10.5120/ijca2015906129 may be a valid DOI for title: A comparative study on Arabic stemmers
- 10.5121/ijnlc.2015.4301 may be a valid DOI for title: Cbas: Context based arabic stemmer
- 10.1007/978-3-319-48308-5_4 may be a valid DOI for title: Arabic Text Classification Based on Word and Document Embeddings
- 10.1007/s13369-016-2029-2 may be a valid DOI for title: A Rule-Based Subject-Correlated Arabic Stemmer
- 10.1109/intellisys.2017.8324232 may be a valid DOI for title: An efficient rank based Arabic root extractor
- 10.1515/9781501501289.273 may be a valid DOI for title: Exploring the effects of root expansion, sentence splitting and ontology on arabic answer selection
- 10.1109/jeeit.2019.8717387 may be a valid DOI for title: Discovering The Applicability of Classification Algorithms With Arabic Poetry
- 10.5815/ijitcs.2016.11.09 may be a valid DOI for title: Arabic Text Categorization Using Mixed Words
- 10.1016/j.jksuci.2016.11.010 may be a valid DOI for title: Enhancing Arabic stemming process using resources and benchmarking tools
- 10.1007/978-3-319-56608-5_26 may be a valid DOI for title: Language influences on tweeter geolocation
- 10.1145/3152464 may be a valid DOI for title: The Contribution of Stemming and Semantics in Arabic Topic Segmentation
- 10.1177/0165551519849516 may be a valid DOI for title: ASA: A framework for Arabic sentiment analysis
- 10.1145/3320326.3320399 may be a valid DOI for title: Impact of Text Pre-processing and Ensemble Learning on Arabic Sentiment Analysis
- 10.5120/ijca2016908328 may be a valid DOI for title: Improving Arabic text categorization using normalization and stemming techniques
- 10.1109/itcc.2005.90 may be a valid DOI for title: Arabic stemming without a root dictionary

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:

arfon commented 1 year ago

:wave: @linuxscout, many thanks for this submission to JOSS. I'm trying to understand the software effort behind this work, but it looks like many of the files include a large number of variables to help with parsing Arabic characters e.g., like this.

Could you please link here the main software contributions of this package to help guide the scope review? Also, it looks like there are some files included in the repository that might have been copied in from another project (I think I can see a different creator/license in places). Please also help me understand what's happening here too. Many thanks!

linuxscout commented 1 year ago

Hi @arfon,

I would like to express my gratitude for your valuable comments regarding our work. Our initial focus was on providing a comprehensive suite of tools and libraries that could efficiently handle Arabic texts and perform various natural language processing tasks. One of the tools that we developed early on was the Tashaphyne stemmer.

As we were working on the stemmer, we realized that certain aspects could be further improved by developing separate packages, such as an Arabic stopwords package. Additionally, PyArabic, which encompasses basic text handling routines, is also an essential package.

While we kept the Tashaphyne stemmer more straightforward and less reliant on other packages, we kept more code for legacy uses because both developers and researchers made extensive use of it. In order to create a high-quality stemmer that many users have adopted, we experimented with various techniques and algorithms.

Our primary contribution is the stemming algorithm contained within stemming.py.

Once again, thank you for your comments.

linuxscout 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:

linuxscout commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot commands

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Hello @linuxscout, here are the things you can ask me to do:


# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers
linuxscout commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 1 year ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1177/0165551519849516 is OK
- 10.5121/ijdkp.2016.6602 is OK
- 10.1109/aiccsa.2014.7073192 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ipm.2018.07.006 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-21902-4_1 is OK
- 10.1145/3106426.3109052 is OK
- 10.1109/access.2019.2903331 is OK
- 10.5121/ijnlc.2016.5301 is OK
- 10.14569/ijacsa.2019.0100234 is OK
- 10.5120/ijca2015906129 is OK
- 10.5121/ijnlc.2015.4301 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-48308-5_4 is OK
- 10.1007/s13369-016-2029-2 is OK
- 10.1109/intellisys.2017.8324232 is OK
- 10.1515/9781501501289.273 is OK
- 10.5815/ijitcs.2016.11.09 is OK
- 10.1109/ACLing.2015.11 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jksuci.2016.11.010 is OK
- 10.1145/2481492.2481507 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-56608-5_26 is OK
- 10.1145/3152464 is OK
- 10.1177/0165551519849516 is OK
- 10.1145/3320326.3320399 is OK
- 10.5120/ijca2016908328 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04886 is OK
- 10.1109/itcc.2005.90 is OK
- 10.32604/cmc.2021.016155 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- https://github.com/linuxscout/tashaphyne/blob/master/tashaphyne/stemming.py is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
linuxscout commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 1 year ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1177/0165551519849516 is OK
- 10.5121/ijdkp.2016.6602 is OK
- 10.1109/aiccsa.2014.7073192 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ipm.2018.07.006 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-21902-4_1 is OK
- 10.1145/3106426.3109052 is OK
- 10.1109/access.2019.2903331 is OK
- 10.5121/ijnlc.2016.5301 is OK
- 10.14569/ijacsa.2019.0100234 is OK
- 10.5120/ijca2015906129 is OK
- 10.5121/ijnlc.2015.4301 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-48308-5_4 is OK
- 10.1007/s13369-016-2029-2 is OK
- 10.1109/intellisys.2017.8324232 is OK
- 10.1515/9781501501289.273 is OK
- 10.1109/jeeit.2019.8717387 is OK
- 10.5815/ijitcs.2016.11.09 is OK
- 10.1109/ACLing.2015.11 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jksuci.2016.11.010 is OK
- 10.1145/2481492.2481507 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-56608-5_26 is OK
- 10.1145/3152464 is OK
- 10.1177/0165551519849516 is OK
- 10.1145/3320326.3320399 is OK
- 10.5120/ijca2016908328 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04886 is OK
- 10.1109/itcc.2005.90 is OK
- 10.32604/cmc.2021.016155 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
linuxscout 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:

linuxscout commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 1 year ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1177/0165551519849516 is OK
- 10.5121/ijdkp.2016.6602 is OK
- 10.1109/aiccsa.2014.7073192 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ipm.2018.07.006 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-21902-4_1 is OK
- 10.1145/3106426.3109052 is OK
- 10.1109/access.2019.2903331 is OK
- 10.5121/ijnlc.2016.5301 is OK
- 10.14569/ijacsa.2019.0100234 is OK
- 10.5120/ijca2015906129 is OK
- 10.5121/ijnlc.2015.4301 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-48308-5_4 is OK
- 10.1007/s13369-016-2029-2 is OK
- 10.1109/intellisys.2017.8324232 is OK
- 10.1515/9781501501289.273 is OK
- 10.1109/jeeit.2019.8717387 is OK
- 10.5815/ijitcs.2016.11.09 is OK
- 10.1109/ACLing.2015.11 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jksuci.2016.11.010 is OK
- 10.1145/2481492.2481507 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-56608-5_26 is OK
- 10.1145/3152464 is OK
- 10.1177/0165551519849516 is OK
- 10.1145/3320326.3320399 is OK
- 10.5120/ijca2016908328 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04886 is OK
- 10.1109/itcc.2005.90 is OK
- 10.32604/cmc.2021.016155 is OK
- 10.3390/app13031387 is OK
- 10.14569/IJACSA.2023.0140347 is OK
- 10.1155/2022/3720358 is OK
- 10.1109/ACIT57182.2022.9994124 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0272269 is OK
- 10.1109/CSI54720.2022.9923952 is OK
- 10.14569/IJACSA.2022.0130199 is OK
- 10.5220/0011585700003335 is OK
- 10.3390/math10183225 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2022.100517 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2022.03.026 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
linuxscout commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 1 year ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1177/0165551519849516 is OK
- 10.5121/ijdkp.2016.6602 is OK
- 10.1109/aiccsa.2014.7073192 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ipm.2018.07.006 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-21902-4_1 is OK
- 10.1145/3106426.3109052 is OK
- 10.1109/access.2019.2903331 is OK
- 10.5121/ijnlc.2016.5301 is OK
- 10.14569/ijacsa.2019.0100234 is OK
- 10.5120/ijca2015906129 is OK
- 10.5121/ijnlc.2015.4301 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-48308-5_4 is OK
- 10.1007/s13369-016-2029-2 is OK
- 10.1109/intellisys.2017.8324232 is OK
- 10.1515/9781501501289.273 is OK
- 10.1109/jeeit.2019.8717387 is OK
- 10.5815/ijitcs.2016.11.09 is OK
- 10.1109/ACLing.2015.11 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jksuci.2016.11.010 is OK
- 10.1145/2481492.2481507 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-56608-5_26 is OK
- 10.1145/3152464 is OK
- 10.1177/0165551519849516 is OK
- 10.1145/3320326.3320399 is OK
- 10.5120/ijca2016908328 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04886 is OK
- 10.1109/itcc.2005.90 is OK
- 10.32604/cmc.2021.016155 is OK
- 10.3390/app13031387 is OK
- 10.1016/j.entcom.2022.100517 is OK
- 10.14569/IJACSA.2023.0140347 is OK
- 10.1155/2022/3720358 is OK
- 10.1109/ACIT57182.2022.9994124 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0272269 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jksuci.2022.03.026 is OK
- 10.1109/CSI54720.2022.9923952 is OK
- 10.14569/IJACSA.2022.0130199 is OK
- 10.5220/0011585700003335 is OK
- 10.3390/math10183225 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
linuxscout 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:

oliviaguest commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot check repository

editorialbot commented 1 year ago 
Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=1.18 s (42.4 files/s, 148805.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          21            323          22635         138700
XML                              1              0              0           5860
HTML                            15            277            217           4949
TeX                              1             55              0            582
reStructuredText                 2            140            213            500
Markdown                         2             90              0            261
JavaScript                       1             17             27            249
CSS                              1             20            124            178
make                             2             10             11             36
DOS Batch                        2              8              1             27
YAML                             2              1              5             22
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            50            941          23233         151364
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 1011

oliviaguest commented 1 year ago

@ajstewartlang @crvernon do you have the space for this? ☺️

crvernon commented 1 year ago

@oliviaguest not at the moment. If nothing moves on this and a few things free up on my side of things, I'll let you know.

samhforbes commented 1 year ago

@oliviaguest I'd be happy to take this if still open

arfon commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot assign @samhforbes as editor

Thanks @samhforbes!

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Assigned! @samhforbes is now the editor

samhforbes commented 1 year ago

Hi @linuxscout thanks for submitting to JOSS, and I'm looking forward to digging into this interesting work. I am currently asking some potential reviewers, but if you have any other reviewer suggestions based on out list of reviewers above, please let me know their handles so I can check them out (without tagging them in please).

samhforbes commented 1 year ago

:wave: @sinaahmadi, @dosc91, @SamHames would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

SamHames commented 1 year ago

@samhforbes I'm happy to review this submission, but I won't have time for the next couple of weeks. If that's okay sign me up.

samhforbes commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot add @SamHames as reviewer

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

@SamHames added to the reviewers list!

samhforbes commented 1 year ago

👋 @sdruskat @frankier would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

frankier commented 1 year ago

Hi! Sorry for the delay in getting back. I'm swamped at the moment so will pass on this. Cheers!

samhforbes commented 1 year ago

👋 @drussellmrichie @garrett-m-smith would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

drussellmrichie commented 1 year ago

I'm not quite sure I'm ideal for this: I'm not an Arabic speaker and I'm not sure I have the software development knowledge to evaluate the quality of a Python package. And, the rest of my plate is rather full right now. I think I'm going to have to pass. Sorry. 😦

samhforbes commented 1 year ago

No worries, thanks @drussellmrichie

sdruskat commented 1 year ago

👋 @sdruskat @frankier would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS?

👋 @samhforbes and thanks for your patience while I was on leave. The topic of this paper is unfortunately well outside my area of expertise, and so I'll have to pass as well. Sorry, and all the best.

samhforbes commented 1 year ago

👋 @dowobeha @geoffbacon would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

samhforbes commented 1 year ago

Hi there @apiad @tresoldi would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

tresoldi commented 1 year ago

Hi @samhforbes . As much as I would like to help, I must unfortunately pass it: my knowledge of Arabic is close to zero. In extreme, I could potentially accept to evaluate the software itself and the NLP side of it if you need it, provided that somebody else addresses the linguistic matter.

samhforbes commented 1 year ago

Hi @linuxscout do you have any subject matter experts you might be able to recommend here (intended users for example) especially some who speak Arabic? I have been reaching out to some off thread but have struggled to get responses, especially over summer.

samhforbes commented 1 year ago

Hi @linuxscout I just want to check in as you haven't commented on the thread since I picked this up. Are you still happy to proceed with this? I continue to ask for reviewers over email, but your recommendations would be helpful here

samhforbes commented 1 year ago

Hi @amitkumarj441, @kikarimullah I know you previously reviewed a related package for us. Would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

kikarimullah commented 1 year ago

Sure, no problem.

Kamran

Dr Kamran I. Karimullah | Lecturer in Islamic Thought | Department of Religions and Theology | School of Arts, Languages and Cultures | University of Manchester | +44 161 275 0475 | Samuel Alexander Building S1.12 | Office hours: Wednesdays 11-1 or by appointment | https://zoom.us/j/5178765556 Genealogies of Knowledge Research Network https://genealogiesofknowledge.net/research-network/

From: Sam Forbes @.> Sent: 14 November 2023 12:07 To: openjournals/joss-reviews @.> Cc: Kamran Karimullah @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [openjournals/joss-reviews] [PRE REVIEW]: Tashaphyne: A Python package for Arabic Light Stemming (Issue #5425)

Hi @amitkumarj441 [github.com]https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/amitkumarj441__;!!PDiH4ENfjr2_Jw!FRUem-G5gBqLYc2zE72Z3z4bm0caly0e5OefwWTxVVR341Okby8RqZrdkuoPYcrb40RzQCf_aBuJtPmMW8PSVN49wbPgElyG6ScZaA$, @kikarimullah [github.com]https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/kikarimullah__;!!PDiH4ENfjr2_Jw!FRUem-G5gBqLYc2zE72Z3z4bm0caly0e5OefwWTxVVR341Okby8RqZrdkuoPYcrb40RzQCf_aBuJtPmMW8PSVN49wbPgElxgo9QxNQ$ I know you previously reviewed a related package for us. Would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html [joss.readthedocs.io]https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html__;!!PDiH4ENfjr2_Jw!FRUem-G5gBqLYc2zE72Z3z4bm0caly0e5OefwWTxVVR341Okby8RqZrdkuoPYcrb40RzQCf_aBuJtPmMW8PSVN49wbPgElxGyoGi5Q$

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub [github.com]https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5425*issuecomment-1810083554__;Iw!!PDiH4ENfjr2_Jw!FRUem-G5gBqLYc2zE72Z3z4bm0caly0e5OefwWTxVVR341Okby8RqZrdkuoPYcrb40RzQCf_aBuJtPmMW8PSVN49wbPgElz_4MKXbA$, or unsubscribe [github.com]https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A3ZOJTTUY5QNP626OX4NK6TYENNIPAVCNFSM6AAAAAAXQBLGVCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQMJQGA4DGNJVGQ__;!!PDiH4ENfjr2_Jw!FRUem-G5gBqLYc2zE72Z3z4bm0caly0e5OefwWTxVVR341Okby8RqZrdkuoPYcrb40RzQCf_aBuJtPmMW8PSVN49wbPgElza7ErKsw$. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

samhforbes commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot add @kikarimullah as reviewer