search

openjournals / joss-reviews

Reviews for the Journal of Open Source Software
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
714 stars 38 forks source link

[REVIEW]: fff_segmenter: A signal segmentation script for acoustic FFF fabrication data in MATLAB #6620

Closed editorialbot closed 2 months ago

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@thiago-glissoi<!--end-author-handle-- (Thiago Glissoi Lopes) Repository: https://github.com/thiago-glissoi/FFF-Line-Segmentation Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v3.0.1 Editor: !--editor-->@bmcfee<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @olivecha, @darsakthi Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.12733091

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4a0136baf38c42b13046e84b01fdd6f7"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4a0136baf38c42b13046e84b01fdd6f7/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4a0136baf38c42b13046e84b01fdd6f7/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4a0136baf38c42b13046e84b01fdd6f7)

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

@olivecha & @darsakthi, 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 @bmcfee 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 @DARSakthi

📝 Checklist for @olivecha

editorialbot commented 5 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 5 months ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.3390/ecsa-9-13285 is OK
- 10.1007/s00170-015-7809-4 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmapro.2018.08.038 is OK
- 10.1016/j.promfg.2017.09.160 is OK
- 10.3390/CGPM2020-07159 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Detecção e classificação de anomalias durante o pr...

INVALID DOIs

- None
editorialbot commented 5 months ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.02 s (372.1 files/s, 105364.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MATLAB                           1            288            113           1021
Markdown                         2             41              0            110
TeX                              1              7              0             83
YAML                             1              1              4             18
JSON                             1              0              0             13
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                             6            337            117           1245
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    80  Glissoi
     6  Thiago Glissoi Lopes
     3  Paulo Monteiro de Carvalho Monson
     1  thiagoglissoilopes
editorialbot commented 5 months ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1018

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

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

thiago-glissoi commented 4 months ago

Hi @bmcfee

Is there any update on the review process?

If any input from the authors is necessary at this point, please let me know.

bmcfee commented 4 months ago

@thiago-glissoi It's currently the reviewers' responsibility to work through the review checklists and report back with items that need attention.

It does look like the reviewers could use a gentle nudge to get started on their checklists though. :grin: @olivecha @darsakthi ?

DARSakthi commented 4 months ago

Thanks for the reminder; let me generate it and start filling it in

DARSakthi commented 4 months ago

Review checklist for @DARSakthi

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

thiago-glissoi commented 4 months ago

Hi @bmcfee

Thanks for the update. I noticed that @DARSakthi has started filling out the review checklist, but I haven't seen any reviewer-created issues on the FFF-Line-Segmentation repository yet.

Is there anything else we can do to gain momentum with the review?

Thanks!

bmcfee commented 4 months ago

Is there anything else we can do to gain momentum with the review?

I guess this depends on where @DARSakthi is at with the review.

Also, gentle reminder to @olivecha to please start the checklist!

olivecha commented 4 months ago

Review checklist for @olivecha

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

olivecha commented 4 months ago

As can be seen from the checklist, some work on the documentation should be done before publication, but the rest is in order. I don't think elaborate packaging should be expected from MATLAB projects, especially as dependencies are a non-issue. However, I don't think the project makes use of any MATLAB specific functions or toolboxes and could be rewritten with scipy and numpy, something the author should consider.

The main issues requiring a certain amount of work that must be resolved before publication are:

danielskatz commented 3 months ago

@thiago-glissoi - As track editor, I'm just checking in on reviews without updates in a couple of weeks. It looks like you are working on the issues from @olivecha?

And @DARSakthi - how is your review coming along?

thiago-glissoi commented 3 months ago

@danielskatz Yes, the authors are addressing the issues assigned by @olivecha . Most of the alterations have already been made, and we are currently working on verifying the compatibility with Octave.

thiago-glissoi commented 3 months ago

Hey @bmcfee and @olivecha 👋

The authors have completed the work with the main and secondary issues brought by @olivecha

As can be seen from the checklist, some work on the documentation should be done before publication, but the rest is in order. I don't think elaborate packaging should be expected from MATLAB projects, especially as dependencies are a non-issue. However, I don't think the project makes use of any MATLAB specific functions or toolboxes and could be rewritten with scipy and numpy, something the author should consider.

The main issues requiring a certain amount of work that must be resolved before publication are:

The authors greatly appreciate the recommendations made by the reviewer.

bmcfee commented 3 months ago

Excellent, thanks for the update @thiago-glissoi !

@olivecha and @DARSakthi please update your checklists as items are completed.

olivecha commented 3 months ago

Only two issues remain:

thiago-glissoi commented 3 months ago

@olivecha

Only two issues remain:

I have completed the work in this issues.

The authors greatly appreciate the recommendations made by the reviewer.

olivecha commented 3 months ago

No more issues need to be resolved for my part

DARSakthi commented 3 months ago

Hello

I apologise for the delays in my response but I have been travelling most of the last two months

I concur with @olivecha's comments and since they have been addressed I do not have much to add. I have all but completed the checklist. I have the following two requests:

The first citation looks incomplete --- the paper belongs to the proceedings of some particular conference no?

For the reader's context can you comment more on how the data in https://github.com/thiago-glissoi/FFF-Line-Segmentation/tree/main/Data was obtained? Some machine settings or collection parameters or something of that nature? A readme in that folder ought to be fine I think (or perhaps this information is already available somewhere else and I have simply not seen it?)

Cheers

DS

thiago-glissoi commented 3 months ago

Hello @DARSakthi

Thank you for your help.

In regard to your requests.

The first citation looks incomplete --- the paper belongs to the proceedings of some particular conference no?

Yes, the first citation is from a conference. Initially, the article was published in the conference proceedings and later republished in a journal using the same DOI. It seems that the reference was using information about the journal republication, which diverges from the current DOI metadata information. I have updated the paper.bib file to ensure that this citation, along with another in the same situation, matches the article's DOI metadata information.

For the reader's context can you comment more on how the data in https://github.com/thiago-glissoi/FFF-Line-Segmentation/tree/main/Data was obtained? Some machine settings or collection parameters or something of that nature? A readme in that folder ought to be fine I think (or perhaps this information is already available somewhere else and I have simply not seen it?)

I believe that this was already addressed in a previous issue. You can find details about how the data was obtained in the Documentation. More specifically, in the section called Acquirement of the Necessary Signals. If more detailing is required, please, let me know.

Cheers,

Thiago

DARSakthi commented 2 months ago

After reading the linked documentation I find this sufficient so I've completed my checklist

Apologies again for the delay; well done and congratulations!

Cheers

DS

bmcfee commented 2 months ago

Thanks @DARSakthi and @olivecha for completing your reviews! I'll move this into the post-review phase now.

bmcfee commented 2 months ago

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance

bmcfee commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

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

bmcfee commented 2 months ago

@thiago-glissoi I'm now working down the editorial tasks for the post-review phase; please see https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6620#issuecomment-2225563820 for a list of author tasks and let me know as you complete them.

Meanwhile, I'm reading the text of the paper and have a couple of suggestions / corrections:

thiago-glissoi commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

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

thiago-glissoi commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.12733091 as archive

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

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

thiago-glissoi commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 2 months ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.3390/ecsa-9-13285 is OK
- 10.1007/s00170-015-7809-4 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmapro.2018.08.038 is OK
- 10.1016/j.promfg.2017.09.160 is OK
- 10.3390/CGPM2020-07159 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Detecção e classificação de anomalias durante o pr...

INVALID DOIs

- None
thiago-glissoi commented 2 months ago

Hey @bmcfee 👋

I have correct these problems in commit b29497b.

  • Line 41: "orientated" → "oriented"
  • Line 47: refers to Figure 2 which does not exist

I have created a current version of the repository v3.0.1.

I also have uploaded this version to Zenodo on 10.5281/zenodo.12733091 .

I have verified both the article and references by using the editorialbot, and seems ok. The only missing DOI is from a thesis, which does not possess a DOI number.

If anything else is necessary, let me know.

Cheers

bmcfee commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.12733091 as archive

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.12733091

bmcfee commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot set v3.0.1 as version

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Done! version is now v3.0.1

bmcfee commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

bmcfee commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 2 months ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.3390/ecsa-9-13285 is OK
- 10.1007/s00170-015-7809-4 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmapro.2018.08.038 is OK
- 10.1016/j.promfg.2017.09.160 is OK
- 10.3390/CGPM2020-07159 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Detecção e classificação de anomalias durante o pr...

INVALID DOIs

- None
editorialbot commented 2 months ago

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

bmcfee commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 2 months ago 
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
bmcfee commented 2 months ago

Thanks @thiago-glissoi ! Everything looks good here, so we can move this on to the next step.

editorialbot commented 2 months ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.3390/ecsa-9-13285 is OK
- 10.1007/s00170-015-7809-4 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmapro.2018.08.038 is OK
- 10.1016/j.promfg.2017.09.160 is OK
- 10.3390/CGPM2020-07159 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Detecção e classificação de anomalias durante o pr...

INVALID DOIs

- None
editorialbot commented 2 months 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/5612, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz commented 2 months ago

👋 @thiago-glissoi - I'm the track editor for this submission, and I've just proofread it. I just have two requests:

  1. Please change "cartesian" to "Cartesian".
  2. Please add a period at the end of the Acknowledgements sentence.

After that, we can proceed to acceptance and publication.