[PRE REVIEW]: mTRFpy: A Python package for temporal response function analysis

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@OleBialas<!--end-author-handle-- (Ole Bialas) Repository: https://github.com/powerfulbean/mTRFpy Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: 1.2.1 Editor: !--editor-->@britta-wstnr<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @Saran-nns, @sappelhoff Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/20004bc0bb3e0918508c3cd45a2909e4"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/20004bc0bb3e0918508c3cd45a2909e4/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/20004bc0bb3e0918508c3cd45a2909e4/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/20004bc0bb3e0918508c3cd45a2909e4)

Author instructions

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

@OleBialas if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

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]

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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.06 s (420.3 files/s, 42764.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          10            151            496           1027
Markdown                         3             65              0            188
reStructuredText                 5             95             38            164
TeX                              1              8              0             80
YAML                             3              8              9             58
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            24            339            551           1552
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 943

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1101/2021.08.01.454687 may be a valid DOI for title: Eelbrain: A Python toolkit for time-continuous analysis with temporal response functions
- 10.1080/23273798.2018.1499946 may be a valid DOI for title: The revolution will not be controlled: natural stimuli in speech neuroscience
- 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00604 may be a valid DOI for title: The multivariate temporal response function (mTRF) toolbox: a MATLAB toolbox for relating neural signals to continuous stimuli
- 10.1093/cercor/bht355 may be a valid DOI for title: Attentional selection in a cocktail party environment can be decoded from single-trial EEG
- 10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.030 may be a valid DOI for title: Low-frequency cortical entrainment to speech reflects phoneme-level processing
- 10.1016/j.cub.2018.01.080 may be a valid DOI for title: Electrophysiological correlates of semantic dissimilarity reflect the comprehension of natural, narrative speech
- 10.3389/fnins.2013.00267 may be a valid DOI for title: MEG and EEG data analysis with MNE-Python

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.

[arfon]

@editorialbot query scope

@OleBialas – due to the relatively small size of this code, the editors will now discuss if it meets the substantial scholarly effort criterion for review by JOSS. We should get back to you sometime next week. If you want to fix the DOIs (noting that @editorialbot's suggestions are not always right), you can, then use the following commands (one at a time, as the first line of a new comment) to regenerate the PDF and check the references.

@editorialbot generate pdf @editorialbot check references

Finally, the paper isn't compiling properly as you've entered an erroneous ORCID:

Problem with ORCID (0000-0000-0000-0000) for Ole Bialas. Invalid ORCID (Theoj::Error)

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[OleBialas]

@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:

[OleBialas]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1101/2021.08.01.454687 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2304.01799 is OK
- 10.1080/23273798.2018.1499946 is OK
- 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00604 is OK
- 10.1093/cercor/bht355 is OK
- 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.10.067 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.030 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cub.2018.01.080 is OK
- 10.3389/fnins.2013.00267 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[OleBialas]

@editorialbot query scope

@OleBialas – due to the relatively small size of this code, the editors will now discuss if it meets the substantial scholarly effort criterion for review by JOSS. We should get back to you sometime next week. If you want to fix the DOIs (noting that @editorialbot's suggestions are not always right), you can, then use the following commands (one at a time, as the first line of a new comment) to regenerate the PDF and check the references.

@editorialbot generate pdf @editorialbot check references

Finally, the paper isn't compiling properly as you've entered an erroneous ORCID:

Problem with ORCID (0000-0000-0000-0000) for Ole Bialas. Invalid ORCID (Theoj::Error)

Thank you @arfon! We are aware of the submission guidelines - we discussed waiting with the submission but decided that the researchers who are already using the package would benefit from a timely review and publication of the software.

[arfon]

@editorialbot assign @britta-wstnr as editor

Thanks to @britta-wstnr for agreeing to take on this submission ⚡

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @britta-wstnr is now the editor

[britta-wstnr]

Hi @OleBialas, I will be handling your submission. - I will start inviting reviewers soon, if you have any ideas for potential reviewers, you can suggest them here --- please read the guidelines in the editorialbot's first comment on how to search for reviewers and how to mention them here (don't "@" them, please).

I will be back shortly! 🙂 🌱

[OleBialas]

Hello @britta-wstnr, thank you for agreeing to be the editor for our submission! Had a look at the reviewer list , saran-nss and peerherholz would be great fits in my opinion.

[britta-wstnr]

Thanks @OleBialas - I in the meanwhile also invited reviewers via email, so I will see further once they get back to me.

[britta-wstnr]

@sappelhoff has agreed to reviewing this - many thanks! Right now, we are still in the reviewer finding state, but I will ping you again once the review process starts.

[britta-wstnr]

No more luck with finding reviewers via e-mail, moving it here ...

[britta-wstnr]

Hi @saran-nns and @peerherholz :wave:

Would you be willing to review the submission: mTRFpy: A Python package for temporal response function analysis for The Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS)?

The review concerns the software mTRFpy and a short paper about it. The review happens fully on GitHub.

You can learn more about the the review process and our conflict of interest policy in the reviewer guidelines here.

If you are available to review this submission, please let me know and I can add you as a reviewer. The review process will start (in a separate GitHub issue) once a sufficient number of reviewers have been found.

Thank you! Britta

[Saran-nns]

hi @britta-wstnr happy to review this submission

[britta-wstnr]

Thanks, @Saran-nns - I appreciate it! 🙏 The reviewing process will start once I have found a sufficient number of reviewers, you will get pinged once we move forward.

[britta-wstnr]

Hi @PeerHerholz :wave: Kind reminder for my review invitation (see comment above) 🙏

[PeerHerholz]

Hi @britta-wstnr and everyone,

I'm truly sorry for my super delayed reply. Unfortunately, my schedule is rather packed these days and I won't be able to do the review in a timely manner. I'm very sorry. This package definitely sounds very interesting and useful!

Sorry again.

Cheers, Peer

[britta-wstnr]

Hi @PeerHerholz - I understand, thanks for getting back to me! 🙏

[britta-wstnr]

@editorialbot add @Saran-nns as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@Saran-nns added to the reviewers list!

[britta-wstnr]

@editorialbot add @sappelhoff as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@sappelhoff added to the reviewers list!

[britta-wstnr]

Hi @Saran-nns and @sappelhoff, hi @OleBialas,

let's move this submission to the reviewing step 🌱 . That means that this PRE-REVIEW will be closed and you will be pinged in a new thread - there'll be detailed info how to proceed there as well!

[britta-wstnr]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5657.