[PRE REVIEW]: JasPer: A Portable Flexible Software Toolkit for Image Coding/Processing

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@mdadams<!--end-author-handle-- (Michael D. Adams) Repository: https://github.com/jasper-software/jasper Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): mdadams-joss Version: 4.2.1 Editor: !--editor-->@adamltyson<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @tomelse, @vitorsr, @justusschock Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/37b2123464bea4d5b49aa430d3aec74e"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/37b2123464bea4d5b49aa430d3aec74e/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/37b2123464bea4d5b49aa430d3aec74e/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/37b2123464bea4d5b49aa430d3aec74e)

Author instructions

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

@mdadams 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=0.31 s (561.6 files/s, 206738.9 lines/s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                      files          blank        comment           code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C                                65           4164           6547          28913
Bourne Again Shell               29            873            475           5419
C/C++ Header                     57           2550           7655           4778
CMake                            10            196            252           1122
TeX                               2             55              4            488
Markdown                          2             38              0            225
YAML                              6             18             40            155
DOS Batch                         1             11              7             35
C++                               1              2              0             19
make                              1              2              0              7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            174           7909          14980          41161
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1249

[editorialbot]

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

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/ICIP.2000.899223 is OK
- 10.1109/ICASSP.2004.1327092 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-13618-4_5 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-15992-3_12 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-540-74272-2_23 is OK
- 10.1109/TPDS.2010.115 is OK
- 10.1007/s11554-018-0833-5 is OK
- 10.1109/PCS.2015.7170073 is OK
- 10.1109/ISPACS.2014.7024437 is OK
- 10.1109/TMM.2006.887994 is OK
- 10.1109/ISCAS.2011.5937855 is OK
- 10.1109/ITNG.2008.66 is OK
- 10.1109/TCSVT.2004.842605 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jbi.2015.01.013 is OK
- 10.1587/transinf.2015EDP7035 is OK
- 10.3390/app12189166 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.5220/0005499500050013 may be a valid DOI for title: Compressed domain ECG biometric identification using JPEG2000

INVALID DOIs

- None

[danielskatz]

👋 @adamltyson - would you be willing to edit this JOSS submission?

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot invite @adamltyson as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[danielskatz]

👋 @mdadams - could you take a look at the possibly missing DOI that editorialbot suggests, but note that it may be incorrect. Please feel free to make changes to your .bib file, then use the command @editorialbot check references to check again, and the command @editorialbot generate pdf when the references are right to make a new PDF. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

[mdadams]

@danielskatz As far as I can tell, the DOI suggested by editorialbot was for an entry in my BibTeX file that was not used in the submitted version of my paper. I had forgotten to delete this unused entry, but I have just removed it now. I will try the editorialbot commands that you suggested in a separate comment to see if editorialbot is happier with the revised document (with the unused BibTeX entry deleted).

[mdadams]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/ICIP.2000.899223 is OK
- 10.1109/ICASSP.2004.1327092 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-13618-4_5 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-15992-3_12 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-540-74272-2_23 is OK
- 10.1109/TPDS.2010.115 is OK
- 10.1007/s11554-018-0833-5 is OK
- 10.1109/PCS.2015.7170073 is OK
- 10.1109/ISPACS.2014.7024437 is OK
- 10.1109/TMM.2006.887994 is OK
- 10.1109/ISCAS.2011.5937855 is OK
- 10.1109/ITNG.2008.66 is OK
- 10.1109/TCSVT.2004.842605 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jbi.2015.01.013 is OK
- 10.1587/transinf.2015EDP7035 is OK
- 10.3390/app12189166 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[mdadams]

@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:

[adamltyson]

👋 @adamltyson - would you be willing to edit this JOSS submission?

Hi @danielskatz, yes, happy to.

[danielskatz]

@adamltyson - thanks! You can do this by using the command @editorialbot assign me as editor in the future, but I'll do it for you this time.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot assign @adamltyson as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @adamltyson is now the editor

[adamltyson]

Hi @mdadams! Before I invite reviewers myself, do you have any suggestions? If so, please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). Thanks!

[mdadams]

@adamltyson I do not have any suggestions for specific individuals to serve as reviewers. I would assume that anyone with a good knowledge of the C language and some basic image processing background should be able to perform the review. There appears to be quite a few people in the JOSS reviewer list who are identified as knowing C and having topic areas that include image processing. So, presumably, any of these people should be fine to serve as reviewers. Does that help at all? Since this is my first time submitting to JOSS, I suspect that I probably could not make a better suggestion for potential reviewers than whoever you would choose yourself.

[adamltyson]

Hi @mdadams, that's totally fine, just thought I'd check.

[adamltyson]

:wave: @tomelse, @justusschock, @vitorsr, would you be able to review this submission to JOSS? I think you've all reviewed for JOSS before, but if you have any questions about the process, please let me know. Thanks!

[tomelse]

Happy to review :)

[vitorsr]

I would be more than glad to.

Though as previously requested in reviews of projects having large codebase, substantial impact and downstream reverse dependencies, I would like to kindly request an additional reviewer out of an abundance of caution in order to ensure our assessment is most comprehensive.

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 8:05 AM Adam Tyson @.***> wrote:

👋 @tomelse https://github.com/tomelse, @justusschock https://github.com/justusschock, @vitorsr https://github.com/vitorsr, would you be able to review this submission to JOSS? I think you've all reviewed for JOSS before, but if you have any questions about the process, please let me know. Thanks!

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6409#issuecomment-1970900031, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJW2VYKPXR3ETQAHX776BKTYV4FPZAVCNFSM6AAAAABDZBMKAOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSNZQHEYDAMBTGE . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[vitorsr]

@adamltyson I think it would be best if we could somehow invite a contributor or maintainer of @uclouvain’s OpenJPEG project. Their expertise would be most valuable in this review.

[justusschock]

@adamltyson I'd also happily reviewn even though it's a bit outside of my knowledge domain. But it looks like you already got enough reviewers :) Please let me know if you still require a review from me :)

[adamltyson]

I think it would be best if we could somehow invite a contributor or maintainer of https://github.com/uclouvain’s OpenJPEG project. Their expertise would be most valuable in this review.

Thanks @vitorsr. That would be useful, but in the interest of time I think it's best to move on with the reviewers we have.

[adamltyson]

I'd also happily reviewn even though it's a bit outside of my knowledge domain. But it looks like you already got enough reviewers :) Please let me know if you still require a review from me :)

Thanks @justusschock. As @vitorsr mentioned, this is a large codebase, so I think three reviewers is wise, so that all aspects of the software can be assessed.

[adamltyson]

Thank you all for responding so quickly @tomelse, @vitorsr, @justusschock!

[adamltyson]

@editorialbot add @tomelse as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@tomelse added to the reviewers list!

[adamltyson]

@editorialbot add @vitorsr as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@vitorsr added to the reviewers list!

[adamltyson]

@editorialbot add @justusschock as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@justusschock added to the reviewers list!

[adamltyson]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6431.