[REVIEW]: Olaf: a lightweight, portable audio search system

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@JorenSix<!--end-author-handle-- (Joren Six) Repository: https://github.com/JorenSix/Olaf Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.1.0 Editor: !--editor-->@bmcfee<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @liscio, @ebezzam Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8093527

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f5b4572fd51939c2ab8363e561bdb2b7"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f5b4572fd51939c2ab8363e561bdb2b7/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f5b4572fd51939c2ab8363e561bdb2b7/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f5b4572fd51939c2ab8363e561bdb2b7)

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

@liscio & @ebezzam, 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 @bmcfee 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 @liscio

📝 Checklist for @ebezzam

[JorenSix]

Fixed, I did miss that doi. FYI again the {{}} vs {} problem. Not sure where the url encoding kicks in but it is fine now.

[JorenSix]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[bmcfee]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/MMSP.2002.1203273 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1416340 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1417593 is OK
- 10.1109/TASL.2012.2234114 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-73165-0_10 is OK
- 10.1007/s11265-005-4151-3 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1414728 is OK
- 10.1121/1.400476 is OK
- 10.1121/1.404385 is OK
- 10.1109/CDMA47397.2020.00010 is OK
- 10.1145/3144749.3144755 is OK
- 10.1109/ICASSP39728.2021.9414337 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1417008 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1416190 is OK
- 10.1007/s12193-015-0196-1 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2302.12258 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1422385 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1422385 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1417973 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4245544 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04554 is OK
- 10.1007/s12193-015-0196-1 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7343030 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-031-18444-4_16 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-031-07015-0_16 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

ID ref-six2015synchronizing already defined

[bmcfee]

@JorenSix looks like you have a duplicate citation key in your bib file and it's breaking the paper build:

https://github.com/JorenSix/Olaf/blob/d474bf6bbd6ad8d6c2562f81415b6316b2cfea77/paper.bib#L233

https://github.com/JorenSix/Olaf/blob/d474bf6bbd6ad8d6c2562f81415b6316b2cfea77/paper.bib#L317

[JorenSix]

Fixed now. Last hurdles :)

[bmcfee]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[bmcfee]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/MMSP.2002.1203273 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1416340 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1417593 is OK
- 10.1109/TASL.2012.2234114 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-73165-0_10 is OK
- 10.1007/s11265-005-4151-3 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1414728 is OK
- 10.1121/1.400476 is OK
- 10.1121/1.404385 is OK
- 10.1109/CDMA47397.2020.00010 is OK
- 10.1145/3144749.3144755 is OK
- 10.1109/ICASSP39728.2021.9414337 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1417008 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1416190 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2302.12258 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1422385 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1422385 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1417973 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4245544 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04554 is OK
- 10.1007/s12193-015-0196-1 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7343030 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-031-18444-4_16 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-031-07015-0_16 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

: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/4364, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[JorenSix]

@bmcfee Thanks for the follow up! Just to be sure: there is no action needed from my side, right?

[bmcfee]

@JorenSix nothing yet - it's now bumped up to the EICs, who may have additional steps for you (or not).

[danielskatz]

@JorenSix - sorry for the delay - I'm the track editor and I was at a conference then on vacation for a couple of days. I'll now proofread the paper and let you know what the next steps are.

[danielskatz]

@JorenSix - I've suggested some minor changes in https://github.com/JorenSix/Olaf/pull/39. Please merge this, or let me know what you disagree with.

Also in the paper, I see "C also provides a lot of exiting footguns, of which I made ample use." Since this is a term that is not in wide use, if you want to keep it, I suggest explaining it. I also wonder if this sentence should just be deleted, since it doesn't contribute to the text in that paragraph in a way that makes sense to me.

[JorenSix]

Merged, thanks for the fixes. Now there is a new version of the paper with a clearer sentence: Developing bug-free code in the C programming language is notoriously challenging. However, many bugs have been found by ...

[JorenSix]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/MMSP.2002.1203273 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1416340 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1417593 is OK
- 10.1109/TASL.2012.2234114 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-73165-0_10 is OK
- 10.1007/s11265-005-4151-3 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1414728 is OK
- 10.1121/1.400476 is OK
- 10.1121/1.404385 is OK
- 10.1109/CDMA47397.2020.00010 is OK
- 10.1145/3144749.3144755 is OK
- 10.1109/ICASSP39728.2021.9414337 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1417008 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1416190 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2302.12258 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1422385 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1422385 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1417973 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4245544 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04554 is OK
- 10.1007/s12193-015-0196-1 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7343030 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-031-18444-4_16 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-031-07015-0_16 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

: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/4372, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot accept

[editorialbot]

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

``` cff-version: "1.2.0" authors: - family-names: Six given-names: Joren orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7671-1907" doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8093527 message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the Journal of Open Source Software. preferred-citation: authors: - family-names: Six given-names: Joren orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7671-1907" date-published: 2023-07-03 doi: 10.21105/joss.05459 issn: 2475-9066 issue: 87 journal: Journal of Open Source Software publisher: name: Open Journals start: 5459 title: "Olaf: a lightweight, portable audio search system" type: article url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05459" volume: 8 title: "Olaf: a lightweight, portable audio search system" ```

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

[editorialbot]

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

[editorialbot]

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/4373
1. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05459
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

[danielskatz]

Congratulations to @JorenSix on your publication!!

And thanks to @liscio and @ebezzam for reviewing, and to @bmcfee for editing!! JOSS depends on volunteers and couldn't do this without you!

[editorialbot]

:tada::tada::tada: Congratulations on your paper acceptance! :tada::tada::tada:

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05459/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05459)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05459">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05459/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05459/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05459

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

• Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

[JorenSix]

Great! Thanks you @liscio, @ebezzam and @bmcfee for taking the time and for the comments. The review process certainly improved the paper and the Olaf software itself! I do think the JOSS concept is working as it should. Thanks again!