editorialbot commented 8 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@fedepup@emdupre<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @vferat, @wmvanvliet Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10813095

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ab7eaf53973996e7c8d49dada734de78"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ab7eaf53973996e7c8d49dada734de78/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ab7eaf53973996e7c8d49dada734de78/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ab7eaf53973996e7c8d49dada734de78)

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

@vferat & @wmvanvliet & @Bsingstad, 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 @emdupre 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 @wmvanvliet

📝 Checklist for @Bsingstad

📝 Checklist for @vferat

editorialbot commented 8 months 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 8 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7117 is OK
- 10.1109/TNNLS.2022.3190448 is OK
- 10.1088/1741-2552/abca18 is OK
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3344531 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1912.01703 is OK
- 10.1088/1741-2552/ab4af6 is OK
- 10.3390/app13095472 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 8 months ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.19 s (775.1 files/s, 128088.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          24           2401           5788           7347
Jupyter Notebook                12              0           3971           2565
reStructuredText                97            552            564            491
Markdown                         8            196              0            457
YAML                             4             22             17            109
TeX                              1             11              0             70
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
TOML                             1              1              0              6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           149           3195          10348          11080
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 8 months ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 979

editorialbot commented 8 months ago

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

emdupre commented 8 months ago

👋 Hi @vferat, @wmvanvliet, @Bsingstad, and thank you again for agreeing to review this submission for SelfEEG !

The review will take place in this issue, and you can generate your individual reviewer checklists by asking editorialbot directly with @editorialbot generate my checklist.

In working through the checklist, you're likely to have specific feedback on SelfEEG. Whenever possible, please open relevant issues on the software repository (and cross-link them with this issue) rather than discussing them here. This helps to make sure that feedback is translated into actionable items to improve the software !

If you aren't sure how to get started, please see the Reviewing for JOSS guide -- and, of course, feel free to ping me with any questions !

Bsingstad commented 8 months ago

Review checklist for @Bsingstad

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/MedMaxLab/selfEEG?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@fedepup) 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.
[ ] 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

[ ] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[ ] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[ ] 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

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

[ ] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[ ] 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?
[ ] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[ ] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[ ] 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?

wmvanvliet commented 8 months ago

Review checklist for @wmvanvliet

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/MedMaxLab/selfEEG?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license? https://github.com/MedMaxLab/selfEEG/issues/1
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@fedepup) 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? https://github.com/MedMaxLab/selfEEG/issues/2
[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). https://github.com/MedMaxLab/selfEEG/pull/3
[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)? https://github.com/MedMaxLab/selfEEG/pull/5
[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?

wmvanvliet commented 8 months ago

Excellent work, @fedepup and team! I think this package will definitely help with the development of self-supervised learning techniques on EEG data.

vferat commented 8 months ago

Review checklist for @vferat

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/MedMaxLab/selfEEG?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@fedepup) 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?

fedepup commented 8 months ago

Excellent work, @fedepup and team! I think this package will definitely help with the development of self-supervised learning techniques on EEG data.

Thank you very much, @wmvanvliet!

fedepup commented 8 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 8 months ago

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

fedepup commented 8 months ago

I've generated a new PDF draft to include changes made during wmvanvliet's review.

emdupre commented 7 months ago

👋 Hi everyone ! I just wanted to check-in on how this review is going for you, @Bsingstad and @vferat.

If you have any questions that I can answer, please don't hesitate to let me know. And thank you again for your help in reviewing SelfEEG !

vferat commented 7 months ago

Hey @emdupre, The review is coming along, I'm a bit busy this week, but I expect to finish by next week.

vferat commented 7 months ago

Review completed !

Thanks to the authors for their responsiveness! The library delivers on its promise to simplify access to EEG data All my comments have been addressed and I can only recommend to accept this publication.

Thank to all authors for making this tool available to the community !

fedepup commented 7 months ago

Thanks to the authors for their responsiveness! The library delivers on its promise to simplify access to EEG data All my comments have been addressed and I can only recommend to accept this publication.

Thank you very much, @vferat!

fedepup commented 7 months ago

Hi @emdupre. To help you have a clear view of all the revisions made during vferat and wmvanvliet review, I would like to write a little summary.

wmvanvliet:

General Checks: The copyright holder's name was changed to MedMax Team MedMaxLab/selfEEG#1
Installation: Corrected the wrongly reported conda channel MedMaxLab/selfEEG#2
Functionality: Minor revision to improve compatibility with python < 3.11 MedMaxLab/selfEEG#4
documentation: Corrected spelling/grammar typos and improved notebooks readability MedMaxLab/selfEEG#3
Paper: Corrected spelling/grammar typos MedMaxLab/selfEEG#5 (I also specified name and surname of every author since mine was detected wrongly https://github.com/MedMaxLab/selfEEG/commit/4154e642b52c1d2ae6374c0f71121b2ffe25ebba)

vferat

Functionality: there was a small bug in the dataloading module when assigning float values to the window length or the sampling rate. Corrected and explained here https://github.com/MedMaxLab/selfEEG/issues/6#issuecomment-1904160507
Documentation: Added a new tutorial notebook with a more concrete use case on real-world data (EEGMMI dataset, preprocessed version) and updated notebooks in the Notebooks folder MedMaxLab/selfEEG@e573df17acc1f15a77b0fc94b92aeaa8d23ae3b2
Maintenance (optional but important): Improved tests by adding a matrix with different os/python versions and the nighlty version of pytorch MedMaxLab/selfEEG#7 and added a basic list of pre-commit MedMaxLab/selfEEG#8

emdupre commented 7 months ago

Thank you for your write-up, @fedepup ! I appreciate this summary 🙏 And thank you very much to @wmvanvliet and @vferat for your reviews !

@Bsingstad, please let us know when you've finalized your review -- or if there are any blockers that we should be aware of ! And thank you again for your work on reviewing SelfEEG to date 🌻

Bsingstad commented 7 months ago

Sorry for my silence here. I will try to finish my review during this week.

emdupre commented 7 months ago

Hi @Bsingstad, thank you for following up on this ! Please let me know if you would still be able to complete your review within the next week, or if you anticipate a longer delay.

fedepup commented 7 months ago

@emdupre - Thanks for your constant monitoring on this review process. Considering how smoothly things have gone so far and, more importantly, how the revisions have already greatly improved the quality of selfEEG, I'm confident that the entire review process will be completed within the expected time.

@Bsingstad - As already said in the pre-review process, I will try to solve any raised issue as soon as possible, possibly within the same day. Thanks again for having accepted to review selfEEG.

emdupre commented 6 months ago

👋 Hi everyone !

I just wanted to follow-up on this review for SelfEEG. Given that we're now outside of the six week review window, we'll need to wrap up our initial reviews. @Bsingstad, if you're able to provide comments by Monday, 4 March we would still be consider those. Otherwise, we'll need to conclude the initial review.

Thank you again to everyone for all of your input throughout this review process !

emdupre commented 6 months ago

Hi again,

Now that we've passed this final deadline, I'll need to remove @Bsingstad from the reviewer list. Thank you, though, for your enthusiasm for SelfEEG.

As @wmvanvliet and @vferat have already confirmed their completed reviews, I'll then proceed to perform a few final editorial checks.

If there are any questions or concerns at this point, please let me know !

emdupre commented 6 months ago

@editorialbot remove @Bsingstad from reviewers

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

@Bsingstad removed from the reviewers list!

emdupre commented 6 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

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

emdupre commented 6 months ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7117 is OK
- 10.1109/TNNLS.2022.3190448 is OK
- 10.1088/1741-2552/abca18 is OK
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3344531 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1912.01703 is OK
- 10.1088/1741-2552/ab4af6 is OK
- 10.3390/app13095472 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

fedepup commented 6 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

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

fedepup commented 6 months ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7117 is OK
- 10.1109/TNNLS.2022.3190448 is OK
- 10.1088/1741-2552/abca18 is OK
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3344531 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1912.01703 is OK
- 10.1088/1741-2552/ab4af6 is OK
- 10.3390/app13095472 is OK
- 10.1016/j.eswa.2024.123550 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

fedepup commented 6 months ago

Hi @emdupre. Yesterday a paper on torchEEG was published on Expert Systems with Applications. Therefore, I've updated the paper and added the new reference. You can find all the modifications here MedMaxLab/SelfEEG@c7475baa2b539901d9b426ccbde2e0d5038b17c3.

I also take the chance to ask if there are other additional steps I need to perform at this stage of the peer-review.

emdupre commented 6 months ago

Thanks for checking in, @fedepup ! I've now had a chance to review SelfEEG and am happy with the state of the submission 🚀

I do, though, have a few small editorial requests before we can proceed (the torchEEG citation was actually one of my original requests, so thanks for taking care of that !):

For the author affiliations, we usually recommend that all affiliations follow "Department, Institute/Univ., City, Country" as closely as possible. It looks like additional address information is included; e.g., "Via Gradenigo 6/b, 35131." Could you please remove this additional information or confirm why it is included?
On line 26, the capitalization of "Artificial Intelligence" is unnecessary
Could you please convert the LightlySSL hyperlink on L33 to their requested citation as listed in their README? I do not, though, think that their provided article type will render appropriately in the JOSS template. Instead I'd suggest formatting it as follows:
```
@software{susmelj2020lightly,
  title = {Lightly},
  author={Igor Susmelj and Matthias Heller and Philipp Wirth and Jeremy Prescott and Malte Ebner et al.},
  url = {https://github.com/lightly-ai/lightly},
  version = {1.5.0},
  date = {2024-03-11},
}
```
I've taken the version and date accessed as latest, but please update as appropriate !
Similarly, could you please convert the ViSSL hyperlink on the same line to their requested citation ?
Otherwise, there are a few citation formatting issues in the current text. I've created a pull request to update these.

emdupre commented 6 months ago

After making these changes, could you then please:

[x] Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here.
[x] Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g., figshare, an institutional repository)
[x] Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) has the correct metadata (e.g., the JOSS paper and software archive have the same title and author listing)
[x] List the DOI of the archived version here.

I'll then be able to proceed with processing the submission 🚀

emdupre commented 6 months 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

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

fedepup commented 6 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

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

fedepup commented 6 months ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7117 is OK
- 10.1109/TNNLS.2022.3190448 is OK
- 10.1088/1741-2552/abca18 is OK
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3344531 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1912.01703 is OK
- 10.1088/1741-2552/ab4af6 is OK
- 10.3390/app13095472 is OK
- 10.1016/j.eswa.2024.123550 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Lightly
- No DOI given, and none found for title: VISSL

INVALID DOIs

- None

wmvanvliet commented 6 months ago

Line 63 of the paper: Few examples are should be A few examples are

fedepup commented 6 months ago

Line 63 of the paper: Few examples are should be A few examples are

Thanks! Corrected.

fedepup commented 6 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

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

fedepup commented 6 months ago

HI @emdupre. Here I report all the requested information and revisions.

Paper

All the additional address information were removed following the suggested structure ( Department, Institute/Univ., City, Country).
Capitalization of "Artificial Intelligence" was removed.
Lightly SSL and ViSSL are now cited with bibtex (I used software instead of misc as you suggested). I also checked that no double parentheses were included in the new draft.

Tagged release and repository archive

Version Number: v0.1.1
Zenodo DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10813095

Title, list of authors, license (MIT), affiliations and version tag reported in the archive are the same as in the paper or GitHub repository.

Additional Notes

Zenodo's DOI registration is currently affected by a service incident at DataCite. So, the provided link does not work at the moment, although it is correct. If you check the DOI that represent all versions of selfEEG ( https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.10813094 ), you can see that this works. You can also check that the one provided for the specific release (v0.1.1) is correct.

Thanks again.

emdupre commented 6 months ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.10813095 as archive

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

That doesn't look like a valid DOI value

openjournals / joss-reviews

[REVIEW]: SelfEEG: A Python library for Self-Supervised Learning in Electroencephalography #6224

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

Review checklist for @Bsingstad

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @wmvanvliet

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @vferat

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

Paper

Tagged release and repository archive

Additional Notes