[REVIEW]: Fusilli: A Python package for multimodal data fusion

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@florencejt@atrisovic<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @aaronhan223, @felixkrones, @cairola Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/92b565ed179928b3362d3fc7866de80e"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/92b565ed179928b3362d3fc7866de80e/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/92b565ed179928b3362d3fc7866de80e/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/92b565ed179928b3362d3fc7866de80e)

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

@aaronhan223 & @felixkrones, 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 @atrisovic 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 @cairola

editorialbot commented 6 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 6 months ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.27 s (716.4 files/s, 135373.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          91           4331           7423          13226
reStructuredText                79           3582           3993           1319
TeX                              1             42              0            469
Markdown                         2             82              0            199
CSS                              1             69            163            174
YAML                             4             17             26             78
TOML                             1              4              0             70
Jupyter Notebook                16              0           1841             64
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           197           8139          13454          15634
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 1704

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.48550/arXiv.2203.15588 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-59713-9_24 is OK
- 10.1186/s12911-020-01340-6 is OK
- 10.3390/diagnostics12123192 is OK
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btac641 is OK
- 10.1093/jamia/ocac168 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.106113 is OK
- 10.1109/ISBI45749.2020.9098645 is OK
- 10.1007/s00432-022-04180-1 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03823 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05027 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05093 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ccell.2022.09.012 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.107413 is OK
- 10.1007/s13755-023-00231-0 is OK
- 10.32604/iasc.2023.029756 is OK
- 10.1007/s42979-021-00971-4 is OK
- 10.1002/aisy.202200213 is OK
- 10.1016/j.inffus.2019.06.019 is OK
- 10.1016/j.inffus.2022.09.025 is OK
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3140815 is OK
- 10.1016/j.neucom.2021.03.090 is OK
- 10.1162/neco_a_01273 is OK
- 10.1093/bib/bbab569 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-031-43993-3_19 may be a valid DOI for title: Multimodal brain age estimation using interpretable adaptive population-graph learning

INVALID DOIs

- None

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:

atrisovic commented 5 months ago

Hi @aaronhan223, @felixkrones, thank you very much for agreeing to review the paper! You can proceed by typing @editorialbot generate my checklist in this GitHub issue to see the checklist that will guide the review (the checklist won't work over email). Thank you again!

atrisovic commented 5 months ago

Hi @aaronhan223, @felixkrones, hope you're having a good day! Just a friendly reminder about the review for Fusilli: A Python package for multimodal data fusion. Your expertise is invaluable to this process, and we're looking forward to your next steps. Please update us on your progress when you can. Thanks so much!

atrisovic commented 3 months ago

Hi @aaronhan223, @felixkrones. I hope all is well. This is a gentle reminder about the paper A Python package for multimodal data fusion. Please let me know if you need any help or support. Thank you for your efforts!

crvernon commented 2 months ago

:wave: @atrisovic - we may need to get new reviewers if @aaronhan223 and @felixkrones don't respond soon. Could you please try to email them as well? Thanks!

atrisovic commented 2 months ago

Hi @crvernon I haven't had much luck with the emails and the search for new reviewers. I wonder if @florencejt has suggestions for potential reviewers?

florencejt commented 2 months ago

Hi @atrisovic! Thanks for your help on this, it's a shame about the other reviewers. I've got two suggestions for new potential reviewers: Sam Gijsen (sam.gijsen@charite.de) and Cameron Shand (cameron.shand@crick.ac.uk). Sam has used fusilli before so is acquainted with how it works, and Cameron is a research software engineer. Let me know if these suggestions are ok and if you'd like me to try to think of more.

atrisovic commented 2 months ago

Thank you very much @florencejt!! I will email them right away.

atrisovic commented 1 month ago

@editorialbot add @cairola as reviewer

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

@cairola added to the reviewers list!

atrisovic commented 1 month ago

Hi @cairola, thank you very much for agreeing to review the paper. To start your review, please type:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

cairola commented 3 weeks ago

Review checklist for @cairola

Conflict of interest

[ ] 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

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

General checks

[ ] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/florencejt/fusilli?
[ ] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[ ] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@florencejt) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[ ] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[ ] 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.
[ ] 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?

openjournals / joss-reviews