editorialbot commented 6 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@JIBSIL@mahfuz05062<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @aparoha, @suriya-ganesh Archive: 10.6084/m9.figshare.26049448

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/af09fee13984aa8fc8dc2c5cf062756e"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/af09fee13984aa8fc8dc2c5cf062756e/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/af09fee13984aa8fc8dc2c5cf062756e/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/af09fee13984aa8fc8dc2c5cf062756e)

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

@aparoha & @suriya-ganesh, 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 @mahfuz05062 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 @aparoha

📝 Checklist for @suriya-ganesh

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=0.02 s (1832.3 files/s, 135370.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go                              28            449            120           1668
Markdown                         3             32              0             76
TeX                              1              0              0             70
YAML                             1              1              4             18
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            33            482            124           1832
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    10  JIBSIL

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/HICSS.2008.436 is OK
- 10.1177/0165551513480107 is OK
- 10.1093/ijlit/ean010 is OK
- 10.1145/269005.266694 is OK
- 10.1145/3488716 is OK
- 10.1109/MSR.2017.59 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: IPFS - Content addressed, versioned, P2P file syst...

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 753

✅ 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

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

mahfuz05062 commented 6 months ago

@aparoha and @suriya-ganesh - Thank you for agreeing to review this submission.

This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

As mentioned above, you can use the command @editorialbot generate my checklist to create your review checklist. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied.

There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines (https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html)

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#6625 so that a link is created to this thread for visibility. Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if you require additional time. We can also use editorialbot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period.

Please feel free to ping me (@mahfuz05062) if you have any questions/concerns.

subygan commented 6 months ago

Review checklist for @suriya-ganesh

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/JIBSIL/DistriFS?
[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 (@JIBSIL) 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?

@mahfuz05062 LMK, If I'm missing something. I've asked Jibsil for some clarificaions.

mahfuz05062 commented 6 months ago

Hi @aparoha , I wanted to make sure you noticed this thread for the review process? Thanks!

aparoha commented 6 months ago

Review checklist for @aparoha

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/JIBSIL/DistriFS?
[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 (@JIBSIL) 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?

JIBSIL commented 6 months ago

I have just made some changes to the Contributing section through this commit and this commit. I hope this passes the community guidelines check. I will work on rewriting my tests into native Go this week. Thanks for your review! - JIBSIL

(crossposted from the issue in the main repo)

JIBSIL commented 6 months ago

Added testing as of commit 63b61d4. Testing instructions are also added to README so users can replicate results.

mahfuz05062 commented 5 months ago

I see the reviews are going pretty well! I will check again later.

subygan commented 5 months ago

With the latest commits, it satisfies All of the requirements. @JIBSIL has been very responsive, They've been very responsive. And I thank them for that.

mahfuz05062 commented 5 months ago

@aparoha Please let us know if you have any questions or need any assistance on the remaining task of the checklist.

mahfuz05062 commented 5 months ago

@aparoha I see that you have 3 items left on your checklist. Can you please take care of these?

mahfuz05062 commented 5 months ago

Hi @aparoha , can you please take care of the things mentioned above?

mahfuz05062 commented 4 months ago

Hi @aparoha , I have not heard from you in the last 3 weeks. Is there anything I can do to help you out?

aparoha commented 4 months ago

Hi Mahfuzur,

Sorry for the late reply. I am travelling since last few weeks. I'll be back on coming Friday and finish review.

Abhay

On Mon, May 27, 2024, 00:36 Mahfuzur Rahman @.***> wrote:

Hi @aparoha https://github.com/aparoha , I have not heard from you in the last 3 weeks. Is there anything I can do to help you out?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6625#issuecomment-2132836802, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGM6VVDMAEIMVCL2H5LGXK3ZELPA5AVCNFSM6AAAAABGIC34F6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMZSHAZTMOBQGI . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

mahfuz05062 commented 4 months ago

Hi @aparoha , any update on this front? Thanks!

aparoha commented 4 months ago

Hi @mahfuz05062 , Sorry, I was late. I have finished the remaining items.

mahfuz05062 commented 4 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

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

mahfuz05062 commented 4 months ago

Thank you @aparoha @suriya-ganesh for completing your review!!

@JIBSIL Can you complete the post-review tasks from the author's side mentioned above? Thanks!

JIBSIL commented 4 months ago

@mahfuz05062 - Sure, here's the completed checklist:

[x] Double check authors and affiliations (including ORCIDs)
[x] 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.
[x] Archive the release on Zenodo/figshare/etc and post the DOI here.
[x] Make sure that the title and author list (including ORCIDs) in the archive match those in the JOSS paper.
[x] Make sure that the license listed for the archive is the same as the software license.

Release version: v1.0.0 @ GitHub Releases Archive version: Figshare, DOI 10.6084/m9.figshare.26049448

mahfuz05062 commented 4 months ago

Thanks @JIBSIL. I was out for the last several days. I plan to go over my checklist today.

mahfuz05062 commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

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

mahfuz05062 commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/HICSS.2008.436 is OK
- 10.1177/0165551513480107 is OK
- 10.1093/ijlit/ean010 is OK
- 10.1145/269005.266694 is OK
- 10.1145/3488716 is OK
- 10.1109/MSR.2017.59 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: IPFS - Content addressed, versioned, P2P file syst...

INVALID DOIs

- None

mahfuz05062 commented 4 months ago

@JIBSIL One thing I wanted to check. For the first citation (IPFS), is it possible to use a published / more recent archived article? The one you cited seems to be on the archive for 10 years but has not been published anywhere!

JIBSIL commented 3 months ago

@mahfuz05062 - It would be possible to substitute the source with a published one. However, the paper in question is the original whitepaper for the IPFS project, hence why it is so old. I found an original description of the system useful- however, if having recent published sources is an absolute requirement, I could substitute it with one of the other academic papers on the subject.

mahfuz05062 commented 3 months ago

@mahfuz05062 - It would be possible to substitute the source with a published one. However, the paper in question is the original whitepaper for the IPFS project, hence why it is so old. I found an original description of the system useful- however, if having recent published sources is an absolute requirement, I could substitute it with one of the other academic papers on the subject.

In that case, I would suggest to add two citations for IPFS. Keep the current one and add another more recent/published citation.

JIBSIL commented 3 months ago

@mahfuz05062 - I have added the relevant citation to the paper as of the latest commit.

mahfuz05062 commented 3 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf