[PRE REVIEW]: LBR-Stack: ROS 2 and Python Integration of KUKA FRI for Med and IIWA Robots

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@mhubii<!--end-author-handle-- (Martin Huber) Repository: https://github.com/lbr-stack/lbr_stack_doc Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main Version: v1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@adi3<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @CameronDevine, @bmagyar, @vincentberenz Managing EiC: George K. Thiruvathukal

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c43c82bed833c02503dd47f2637192ef"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c43c82bed833c02503dd47f2637192ef/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c43c82bed833c02503dd47f2637192ef/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c43c82bed833c02503dd47f2637192ef)

Author instructions

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

The AEiC suggestion for the handling editor is @adi3.

@mhubii 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]

Couldn't check the bibtex because branch name is incorrect: https://github.com/KCL-BMEIS/lbr_fri_ros2_stack_doc

[editorialbot]

Couldn't check the bibtex because branch name is incorrect: https://github.com/KCL-BMEIS/lbr_fri_ros2_stack_doc

[editorialbot]

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.

[gkthiruvathukal]

@editorialbot invite @adi3 as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[adi3]

@editorialbot assign @adi3 as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @adi3 is now the editor

[adi3]

@mhubii - I'll be the editor for thisreview. To get things going, could you please suggest 5-6 reviewers from this list that you consider appropriate to vet this paper? While selecting, you should confirm that the domain expertise of the reviewer matches the subject matter of your paper and software. Thanks!

Thank you!

[mhubii]

hi @adi3 and thank you very much for your help! Yes, I will suggest reviewers once access got granted.

[gkthiruvathukal]

Thank you, @adi3, for helping to edit this submission.

[adi3]

@mhubii can you check if you have access now and suggest reviewers? Thanks!

[mhubii]

hi @adi3 , yes we have access now.

After searching the list thoroughly, we found 5 great candidates for reviewing:

• @sea-bass (PickNik)
• @destogl (ros2_control)
• @SteveMacenski (nav2 and ros2 paper)
• @traversaro (IIT, ros conda, osqp eigen...)
• @SeungBack (ros2 contributor)

We understand that they might be exceptionally busy and are happy to search for other reviewers, too.

[adi3]

@mhubii thanks for the suggestions. I know some of these folks are really busy so would be a great idea to find as many reviewers as possible from the list. I'll reach out to your suggestions in the meantime.

[adi3]

@destogl @SteveMacenski @traversaro @SeungBack - Are any of you available to review this ROS paper?

[mhubii]

this is our full list

• @bxtbold
• @abougouffa
• @crocodyl
• @askuric
• @jingnanshi
• @jcarpent
• @CameronDevine
• @mosteo

[SteveMacenski]

While I don't argue against the utility of what they've put together, I don't see any research impact / value that would be meet the journal's requirements. It appears to me to be another wrapper on a company's SDK to expose to ROS - no different than a new sensor driver or robot hardware integration layer. I'd be happy to review the paper once its generated, but I'm not sure this work is appropriate for any journal publication.

[mhubii]

Thank you for the early feedback @SteveMacenski , we are trying our best to find a solution to the paper generation.

In the meantime, the paper is accessible in the documenting repository https://github.com/lbr-stack/lbr_fri_ros2_stack_doc/actions/runs/5749570650.

The compilation does not work through @editorialbot right now because the documentation bundles the entire lbr-stack and lives in a separate repository. We do want to apologize for the inconvenience.

[mhubii]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @mhubii, 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

[mhubii]

Hi @adi3 , is it possible to re-submit? Not sure how to get the @editorialbot to change the repository.

The submission is regarding the lbr-stack, which also includes ROS bindings but much more. Think that is what caused the confusion for @SteveMacenski. This is our mistake. Really sorry.

[adi3]

@arfon is there way for the authors to change the submitted repo? Or would they need to kick off a new submission?

[mhubii]

@editorialbot set https://github.com/lbr-stack/lbr_fri_ros2_stack_doc as repository

[editorialbot]

I'm sorry @mhubii, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do.

[mhubii]

@editorialbot set https://github.com/lbr-stack/lbr_fri_ros2_stack_doc as repository

[editorialbot]

I'm sorry @mhubii, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do.

[mhubii]

hi @adi3, editorial bot allows editors to change repositories (https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/editorial_bot.html#the-complete-list-of-available-commands). Could you please set the repository to:

@editorialbot set https://github.com/lbr-stack/lbr_stack_doc as repository

this should fix the issue hopefully. My dearest apologies again

[adi3]

@editorialbot set https://github.com/lbr-stack/lbr_stack_doc as repository

[editorialbot]

Done! repository is now https://github.com/lbr-stack/lbr_stack_doc

[mhubii]

@editorialbot set main as branch

[editorialbot]

Done! branch is now main

[mhubii]

@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:

[mhubii]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/SII55687.2023.10039308 is OK
- 10.1109/MRA.2018.2877776 is OK
- 10.1109/IROS.2004.1389727 is OK
- 10.1126/scirobotics.abm6074 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00456 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1109/tmi.2016.2620723 may be a valid DOI for title: Towards MRI-based autonomous robotic US acquisitions: a first feasibility study

INVALID DOIs

- None

[mhubii]

@editorialbot check repository

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.03 s (385.2 files/s, 15910.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Markdown                         2             33              0            114
TeX                              1             10              0             98
YAML                             3              5              0             66
Python                           1             16             17             54
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
JSON                             1              0              0             22
reStructuredText                 3              7             29             11
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            13             83             54            400
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 895

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a valid open source license

[mhubii]

@editorialbot check repository

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.02 s (632.6 files/s, 26131.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Markdown                         2             33              0            114
TeX                              1             10              0             98
YAML                             3              5              0             66
Python                           1             16             17             54
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
JSON                             1              0              0             22
reStructuredText                 3              7             29             11
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            13             83             54            400
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 895

[mhubii]

Thank you for the continued support in this endeavor.

It seems we can proceed with the review process and I hope we can find people who are generous to offer their free time for providing feedback.

Should I search for additional reviewers?

[arfon]

@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:

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

biorbd: A C++, Python and MATLAB library to analyze and simulate the human body biomechanics Submitting author: @pariterre Handling editor: @trallard (Retired) Reviewers: @trallard, @abhishektha Similarity score: 0.8044

Phobos: A tool for creating complex robot models Submitting author: @Amudtogal Handling editor: @gkthiruvathukal (Active) Reviewers: @CameronDevine, @trallard Similarity score: 0.7996

CoreRobotics: An object-oriented C++ library with cross-language wrappers for cross-platform robot control Submitting author: @CoreRobotics Handling editor: @danielskatz (Active) Reviewers: @bmagyar @amjaeger17 Similarity score: 0.7930

kiwiPy: Robust, high-volume, messaging for big-data and computational science workflows Submitting author: @muhrin Handling editor: @danielskatz (Active) Reviewers: @dghoshal-lbl, @uellue Similarity score: 0.7927

SLAM Toolbox: SLAM for the dynamic world Submitting author: @stevemacenski Handling editor: @arfon (Active) Reviewers: @mosteo, @carlosjoserg Similarity score: 0.7882

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[arfon]

@adi3 – this list of most similar historical papers could be a good source of reviewers? Please start with the previous authors first before asking previous reviewers.

[adi3]

@pariterre @Amudtogal @CoreRobotics @muhrin @trallard @abhishektha - would you be available to review this submission? Thank you in advance!

[pariterre]

Hi @adi3 ! I've had a quick look at the paper and I believe the article is beyond my expertise

Sorry about that!

[CameronDevine]

I was another author of the CoreRobotics paper/software and a reviewer for one of the papers listed above. I am willing to review this paper if you are still searching for reviewers.