[REVIEW]: PyBWE: Python tools for Bandwidth Extrapolation of planetary radar signals

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@NicOudart@mbobra<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @letiziagambacorta1, @kathlandgren Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10259072

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/16898c7ed1ff84843966a673e06dd513"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/16898c7ed1ff84843966a673e06dd513/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/16898c7ed1ff84843966a673e06dd513/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/16898c7ed1ff84843966a673e06dd513)

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

@letiziagambacorta1 & @kathlandgren, 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 @mbobra 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 @letiziagambacorta1

📝 Checklist for @kathlandgren

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 1.90  T=0.04 s (1372.0 files/s, 199412.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Markdown                        12            782              0           1521
Python                          31            807           1261           1493
SVG                              1              1              1            897
YAML                             5             25              9            272
TeX                              1             16              0            182
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            50           1631           1271           4365
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   125  NicOudart
     6  Nicolas Oudart

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1004

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

License info:

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

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1089/ast.2016.1532 is OK
- 10.1029/2022gl101429 is OK
- 10.1109/tgrs.2022.3216893 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1109/proc.1981.12184 is OK
- 10.1002/2013gl058618 is OK
- 10.1016/j.pss.2021.105173 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.1109/metroaerospace.2018.8453529 is OK
- 10.1109/igarss.2003.1295505 is OK
- 10.1109/tgrs.2006.885406 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: A bandwidth extrapolation technique for improved r...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Enhanced imagery using spectral-estimation-based t...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A State-Space Technique for Ultrawide-Bandwidth Co...

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:

mbobra commented 6 months ago

👋 @letiziagambacorta1, @kathlandgren Thank you so much for agreeing to review! You can find the article in the comment boxes above ⬆️ , the software repository linked in the first comment box on this issue. To generate your checklist, use the following command:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

I think you're good to go. Again, JOSS is an open review process and we encourage communication between the reviewers, the submitting author, and the editor. And please feel free to ask me questions, I'm always around.

Can you please respond here (or give a thumbs up) so I know you're in the right place and found all the materials?

kathlandgren commented 6 months ago

Review checklist for @kathlandgren

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/NicOudart/PyBWE?
[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 (@NicOudart) 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?

mbobra commented 6 months ago

Thank you @kathlandgren -- very speedy! I really appreciate it.

mbobra commented 6 months ago

@letiziagambacorta1 Did you find the review materials okay? Please let me know if you need any help!

letiziagambacorta1 commented 6 months ago

Dear Monica, I just still did not manage to start the review. I will try to provide it to you no later than the end of the next week.

Il giorno sab 20 apr 2024 alle ore 00:04 Monica Bobra < @.***> ha scritto:

@letiziagambacorta1 https://github.com/letiziagambacorta1 Did you find the review materials okay? Please let me know if you need any help!

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6622#issuecomment-2067336458, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANTTHOYBBTQHKB4HDFPPGPTY6GIHPAVCNFSM6AAAAABGHYR63GVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDANRXGMZTMNBVHA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

letiziagambacorta1 commented 6 months ago

@mbobra I am starting the review! I have some questions. I do not manage to generate my checklist by typing @editorialbot generate my checklist as a comment. The .pdf rewiew has to be done the same way of the code? By opening an issue in the target directory and linking it in a specific comment in this issue?

mbobra commented 6 months ago

@letiziagambacorta1 Thank you! Hmmm...I don't know what's wrong. Can you try again?

Go to this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6622
Scroll all the way down the page and find the box that says "Add a comment"
Type @editorialbot generate my checklist

NicOudart commented 6 months ago

For your information, following an issue raised by kathlandgren concerning the figures outputs of PyBWE example scripts, I updated the article proof with the new figure format.

NicOudart commented 6 months ago

For your information, following an issue raised by letiziagambacorta1 concerning her review of the article, I updated the article proof with minor corrections.

kathlandgren commented 5 months ago

I have completed my review.

letiziagambacorta1 commented 5 months ago

Review checklist for @letiziagambacorta1

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/NicOudart/PyBWE?
[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 (@NicOudart) 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?

mbobra commented 5 months ago

Thank you for your review, @kathlandgren ! Your volunteer time keeps JOSS running and the JOSS team truly appreciates it.

letiziagambacorta1 commented 5 months ago

Hello. I think I am done, right?

mbobra commented 5 months ago

@letiziagambacorta1 Yes! Thank you very much for your review. I sincerely appreciate it.

mbobra commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

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:

mbobra commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1089/ast.2016.1532 is OK
- 10.1029/2022gl101429 is OK
- 10.1109/tgrs.2022.3216893 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1109/proc.1981.12184 is OK
- 10.1002/2013gl058618 is OK
- 10.1016/j.pss.2021.105173 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.1049/el.2018.7284 is OK
- 10.1109/metroaerospace.2018.8453529 is OK
- 10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115803 is OK
- 10.1109/igarss.2003.1295505 is OK
- 10.1109/tgrs.2006.885406 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: A bandwidth extrapolation technique for improved r...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Enhanced imagery using spectral-estimation-based t...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A State-Space Technique for Ultrawide-Bandwidth Co...

INVALID DOIs

- None

mbobra commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.10793735 as archive

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.10793735

mbobra commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot set 2024.03 as version

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

Done! version is now 2024.03

mbobra commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1089/ast.2016.1532 is OK
- 10.1029/2022gl101429 is OK
- 10.1109/tgrs.2022.3216893 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1109/proc.1981.12184 is OK
- 10.1002/2013gl058618 is OK
- 10.1016/j.pss.2021.105173 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.1049/el.2018.7284 is OK
- 10.1109/metroaerospace.2018.8453529 is OK
- 10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115803 is OK
- 10.1109/igarss.2003.1295505 is OK
- 10.1109/tgrs.2006.885406 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: A bandwidth extrapolation technique for improved r...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Enhanced imagery using spectral-estimation-based t...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A State-Space Technique for Ultrawide-Bandwidth Co...

INVALID DOIs

- None

mbobra commented 5 months ago

Almost there, @NicOudart ! Congratulations on an a really nice package and paper. If you can fix the missing DOIs in the paper, please do so. Otherwise (if there is no DOI associated with the reference), that's fine.

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

:wave: @openjournals/aass-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/5368, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

NicOudart commented 5 months ago

Almost there, @NicOudart ! Congratulations on an a really nice package and paper. If you can fix the missing DOIs in the paper, please do so. Otherwise (if there is no DOI associated with the reference), that's fine.

Thank you @mbobra ! I made a last minute modification to the paper as I noticed a mistake in the figure's caption (a and b were switched). Concerning the 3 missing DOIs, these references are technical reports from the Lincoln Laboratory (MIT), and do not have a DOI. With the figure's caption fixed, I think the article is ready to be published.

mbobra commented 5 months ago

@NicOudart Okay great! Since we made some modifications, could you please cut a new release of PyBWE, deposit it in Zenodo, and put the link to the Zenodo deposit in this thread? Please make sure that the author list and title on the Zenodo deposit matches the author list and title on the JOSS paper. Then I can move forward with accepting the paper.

NicOudart commented 5 months ago

@NicOudart Okay great! Since we made some modifications, could you please cut a new release of PyBWE, deposit it in Zenodo, and put the link to the Zenodo deposit in this thread? Please make sure that the author list and title on the Zenodo deposit matches the author list and title on the JOSS paper. Then I can move forward with accepting the paper.

I cut a new release "2024.05" of PyBWE, with the modified article. I deposited this release to Zenodo, here is the URL: https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.10259072 However, I am not sure to understand what you mean by "making sure the author list and title on the Zenodo deposit matches the author list and title on the JOSS paper". Do you mean that the paper.md within the release I deposited in Zenodo should have the same title and authors as the draft paper? If so, the title and list of author remained unchanged.

mbobra commented 5 months ago

Do you mean that the paper.md within the release I deposited in Zenodo should have the same title and authors as the draft paper?

@NicOudart Yes exactly -- thank you, this is perfect.

mbobra commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

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:

mbobra commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1089/ast.2016.1532 is OK
- 10.1029/2022gl101429 is OK
- 10.1109/tgrs.2022.3216893 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1109/proc.1981.12184 is OK
- 10.1002/2013gl058618 is OK
- 10.1016/j.pss.2021.105173 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.1049/el.2018.7284 is OK
- 10.1109/metroaerospace.2018.8453529 is OK
- 10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115803 is OK
- 10.1109/igarss.2003.1295505 is OK
- 10.1109/tgrs.2006.885406 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: A bandwidth extrapolation technique for improved r...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Enhanced imagery using spectral-estimation-based t...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A State-Space Technique for Ultrawide-Bandwidth Co...

INVALID DOIs

- None

mbobra commented 5 months ago

👋 @openjournals/aass-eics Please note @NicOudart's comment above:

Concerning the 3 missing DOIs, these references are technical reports from the Lincoln Laboratory (MIT), and do not have a DOI.

mbobra commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot set 2024.05 as version

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

Done! version is now 2024.05

mbobra commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.10259072 as archive

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.10259072

mbobra commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1089/ast.2016.1532 is OK
- 10.1029/2022gl101429 is OK
- 10.1109/tgrs.2022.3216893 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1109/proc.1981.12184 is OK
- 10.1002/2013gl058618 is OK
- 10.1016/j.pss.2021.105173 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.1049/el.2018.7284 is OK
- 10.1109/metroaerospace.2018.8453529 is OK
- 10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115803 is OK
- 10.1109/igarss.2003.1295505 is OK
- 10.1109/tgrs.2006.885406 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: A bandwidth extrapolation technique for improved r...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Enhanced imagery using spectral-estimation-based t...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A State-Space Technique for Ultrawide-Bandwidth Co...

INVALID DOIs

- None

mbobra commented 5 months ago

👋 @openjournals/aass-eics We're really ready this time!

openjournals / joss-reviews