editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@cumbof@danielskatz<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @mahfuz05062, @anilbey Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8331296

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ef404bdbfd9428d01d2142820ab799c1"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ef404bdbfd9428d01d2142820ab799c1/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ef404bdbfd9428d01d2142820ab799c1/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ef404bdbfd9428d01d2142820ab799c1)

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

@mahfuz05062 & @anilbey, 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 @danielskatz 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 @mahfuz05062

📝 Checklist for @anilbey

editorialbot commented 1 year 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

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.05 s (270.0 files/s, 73716.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                           8            702           1228           1162
TeX                              1             22              0            210
Markdown                         3             82              0            140
Bourne Shell                     1              1              0              2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            13            807           1228           1514
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.3390/a13090233 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-59028-4_1 is OK
- 10.1109/DAC.2018.8465708 is OK
- 10.1007/s12559-009-9009-8 is OK
- 10.1007/s10462-021-10110-3 is OK
- 10.1109/TNNLS.2022.3211274 is OK
- 10.1109/IJCNN55064.2022.9892981 is OK
- 10.1145/3508352.3549477 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2303.15604 is OK
- 10.1109/BIBM55620.2022.9995708 is OK
- 10.1109/DAC18074.2021.9586253 is OK
- 10.1109/FCCM53951.2022.9786145 is OK
- 10.23919/DATE48585.2020.9116397 is OK
- 10.1109/BIBE.2018.00046 is OK
- 10.1007/s12559-021-09974-y is OK
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3001765 is OK
- 10.1109/ALLERTON.2014.7028470 is OK
- 10.1007/s13218-019-00623-z is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.cs/0412059 is OK
- 10.1016/j.future.2020.04.005 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2205.09208 is OK
- 10.1109/TC.2022.3179226 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2206.04746 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 1319

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:

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

@mahfuz05062 and @anilbey - Thanks for agreeing to review this submission. This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

As you can see above, you each should use the command @editorialbot generate my checklist to create your review checklist. @editorialbot commands need to be the first thing in a new comment.

As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also 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, reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#5704 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 either 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 (@danielskatz) if you have any questions/concerns.

mahfuz05062 commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @mahfuz05062

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/cumbof/hdlib?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@cumbof) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[x] 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

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

anilbey commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @anilbey

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/cumbof/hdlib?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@cumbof) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[x] 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

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

👋 @mahfuz05062 and @anilbey - I see the review is moving along, which is great!

Please keep up the progress, and let me know if there's anything that is blocking you.

cumbof commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

This is the new version of the manuscript. Actually the same as the previous one with a couple of fixes on grammatical mistakes as spotted by @mahfuz05062 in cumbof/hdlib#7

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:

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

👋 @mahfuz05062 and @anilbey - How are things going? Is there anything blocking further progress on your reviews?

anilbey commented 1 year ago

Hi @danielskatz it is moving smoothly. There are only a few items remaining on my checklist.

mahfuz05062 commented 1 year ago

Hi @danielskatz it is moving well on my end too! I have to check the references and see if the method comparison could be better, both of which should be done in the coming weekend.

cumbof commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

Another minor fix based on https://github.com/cumbof/hdlib/issues/7#issuecomment-1711534272

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:

anilbey commented 1 year ago

@danielskatz, I'm pleased to inform you that I've completed my checklist. All of my comments, have been addressed by @cumbof

mahfuz05062 commented 1 year ago

@danielskatz I'm also done with my checklist. All of my concerns have been addressed and I am happy with the changes made in response to @anilbey and me.

cumbof commented 1 year ago

Thanks @anilbey and @mahfuz05062, I really appreciate your time in reviewing our submission. All your comments have been very useful for improving code and documentation.

@danielskatz I've just released hdlib v.0.1.15 which mainly includes my replies to the reviewers' issues.

Could you please update the package version here as well?

Also, please let me know if there is anything I'm supposed to do now. Thanks

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot set v.0.1.15 as version

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Done! version is now v.0.1.15

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

[ ] Double check authors and affiliations (including ORCIDs)
[ ] Make a release of the software with the latest changes from the review and post the version number here. This is the version that will be used in the JOSS paper.
[ ] Archive the release on Zenodo/figshare/etc and post the DOI here.
[ ] Make sure that the title and author list (including ORCIDs) in the archive match those in the JOSS paper.
[ ] Make sure that the license listed for the archive is the same as the software license.

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance

[ ] Read the text of the paper and offer comments/corrections (as either a list or a PR)
[ ] Check the references in the paper for corrections (e.g. capitalization)
[ ] Check that the archive title, author list, version tag, and the license are correct
[ ] Set archive DOI with @editorialbot set <DOI here> as archive
[ ] Set version with @editorialbot set <version here> as version
[ ] Double check rendering of paper with @editorialbot generate pdf
[ ] Specifically check the references with @editorialbot check references and ask author(s) to update as needed
[ ] Recommend acceptance with @editorialbot recommend-accept

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

@cumbof - please do the author items above (some of which you might have already done)

cumbof commented 1 year ago

@danielskatz I'm done with the additional author tasks, you can mark them all as completed. Here is the link to the Zenodo entry https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8331296

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.8331296 as archive

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.8331296

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

I'll proofread this and let you know the next steps

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.3390/a13090233 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-59028-4_1 is OK
- 10.1109/DAC.2018.8465708 is OK
- 10.1007/s12559-009-9009-8 is OK
- 10.1007/s10462-021-10110-3 is OK
- 10.1109/TNNLS.2022.3211274 is OK
- 10.1109/IJCNN55064.2022.9892981 is OK
- 10.1145/3508352.3549477 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2303.15604 is OK
- 10.1109/BIBM55620.2022.9995708 is OK
- 10.1109/DAC18074.2021.9586253 is OK
- 10.1109/FCCM53951.2022.9786145 is OK
- 10.23919/DATE48585.2020.9116397 is OK
- 10.1109/BIBE.2018.00046 is OK
- 10.1007/s12559-021-09974-y is OK
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3001765 is OK
- 10.1109/ALLERTON.2014.7028470 is OK
- 10.1007/s13218-019-00623-z is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.cs/0412059 is OK
- 10.1016/j.future.2020.04.005 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2205.09208 is OK
- 10.1109/TC.2022.3179226 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2206.04746 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

: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/4541, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

👋 @cumbof - I've suggested a bunch of minor fixes for bib entries in https://github.com/cumbof/hdlib/pull/10 - please merge this, or let me know what you disagree with, then we can proceed to acceptance and publication

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.3390/a13090233 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-59028-4_1 is OK
- 10.1109/DAC.2018.8465708 is OK
- 10.1007/s12559-009-9009-8 is OK
- 10.1007/s10462-021-10110-3 is OK
- 10.1109/TNNLS.2022.3211274 is OK
- 10.1109/IJCNN55064.2022.9892981 is OK
- 10.1145/3508352.3549477 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2303.15604 is OK
- 10.1109/BIBM55620.2022.9995708 is OK
- 10.1109/DAC18074.2021.9586253 is OK
- 10.1109/FCCM53951.2022.9786145 is OK
- 10.23919/DATE48585.2020.9116397 is OK
- 10.1109/BIBE.2018.00046 is OK
- 10.1007/s12559-021-09974-y is OK
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3001765 is OK
- 10.1109/ALLERTON.2014.7028470 is OK
- 10.1007/s13218-019-00623-z is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.cs/0412059 is OK
- 10.1016/j.future.2020.04.005 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2205.09208 is OK
- 10.1109/TC.2022.3179226 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2206.04746 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

cumbof commented 1 year ago

Thanks @danielskatz! I don't have any concerns about your PR. I've just merged it.

Let me know if I can do anything else.

Also, I was wondering if I'm supposed to maintain the joss branch in the hdlib repo even after the publication. Since it is out of sync with the main branch, except for the paper folder, I was planning to push the paper in the main branch and get rid of the joss branch.

Please let me know if this is possible.

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

: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/4547, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

@cumbof - yes, that's fine. We don't have a requirement for a paper branch at all, some submissions have the paper in main from the start. But please don't do this until after the publication is done.

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

@cumbof - can you change the dna in the Cumbo reference to {DNA} - sorry I missed this one.

cumbof commented 1 year ago

@danielskatz - Sure, no problem. Done

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.3390/a13090233 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-59028-4_1 is OK
- 10.1109/DAC.2018.8465708 is OK
- 10.1007/s12559-009-9009-8 is OK
- 10.1007/s10462-021-10110-3 is OK
- 10.1109/TNNLS.2022.3211274 is OK
- 10.1109/IJCNN55064.2022.9892981 is OK
- 10.1145/3508352.3549477 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2303.15604 is OK
- 10.1109/BIBM55620.2022.9995708 is OK
- 10.1109/DAC18074.2021.9586253 is OK
- 10.1109/FCCM53951.2022.9786145 is OK
- 10.23919/DATE48585.2020.9116397 is OK
- 10.1109/BIBE.2018.00046 is OK
- 10.1007/s12559-021-09974-y is OK
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3001765 is OK
- 10.1109/ALLERTON.2014.7028470 is OK
- 10.1007/s13218-019-00623-z is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.cs/0412059 is OK
- 10.1016/j.future.2020.04.005 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2205.09208 is OK
- 10.1109/TC.2022.3179226 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2206.04746 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

: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/4549, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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: Cumbo given-names: Fabio orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2920-5838" - family-names: Weitschek given-names: Emanuel orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8045-2925" - family-names: Blankenberg given-names: Daniel orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6833-9049" contact: - family-names: Cumbo given-names: Fabio orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2920-5838" doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8331296 message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the Journal of Open Source Software. preferred-citation: authors: - family-names: Cumbo given-names: Fabio orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2920-5838" - family-names: Weitschek given-names: Emanuel orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8045-2925" - family-names: Blankenberg given-names: Daniel orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6833-9049" date-published: 2023-09-11 doi: 10.21105/joss.05704 issn: 2475-9066 issue: 89 journal: Journal of Open Source Software publisher: name: Open Journals start: 5704 title: "hdlib: A Python library for designing Vector-Symbolic Architectures" type: article url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05704" volume: 8 title: "hdlib: A Python library for designing Vector-Symbolic Architectures" ```

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 commented 1 year ago

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/4550
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05704
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

Congratulations to @cumbof (Fabio Cumbo) and co-authors on your publication!!

And thanks to @mahfuz05062 and @anilbey for reviewing! JOSS is based on volunteers, and we couldn't do this without you

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

: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.05704/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05704)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05704">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05704/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05704/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05704

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

openjournals / joss-reviews

[REVIEW]: hdlib: A Python library for designing Vector-Symbolic Architectures #5704

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

Review checklist for @mahfuz05062

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @anilbey

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance