[REVIEW]: DSSE: An environment for simulation of reinforcement learning-empowered drone swarm maritime search and rescue missions

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@renatex333@kanishkan91<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @draabe, @wob86 Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.12668728

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/57c2c7323124206325d600d34cfecbcf"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/57c2c7323124206325d600d34cfecbcf/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/57c2c7323124206325d600d34cfecbcf/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/57c2c7323124206325d600d34cfecbcf)

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

@draabe & @wob86, 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 @kanishkan91 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 @draabe

📝 Checklist for @wob86

editorialbot commented 2 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 2 months ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.04 s (1180.1 files/s, 188918.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JSON                             3              0              0           2637
Python                          19            412            236           1856
Markdown                        12            391              0           1094
YAML                             4             18             16            145
TeX                              1             11              0            130
CSS                              1             21             55             77
TOML                             1              6              0             63
SVG                              3              1              0             18
TypeScript                       1              1              3             13
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            45            861            310           6033
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   157  Pedro2712
    62  RicardoRibeiroRodrigues
    58  renatex333
    52  Luis Filipe Carrete
    43  leonardo.malta
    36  Manuel Castanares
    21  Enrico
    17  JJ
    13  leonardodma
    12  JorasOliveira
    11  Renato
     8  Joras Oliveira
     8  Renato Laffranchi Falcão
     2  Ricardo Ribeiro Rodrigues
     1  Fabricio J Barth
     1  Leonardo Malta

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 892

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

License info:

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

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:

draabe commented 2 months ago

Review checklist for @draabe

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/pfeinsper/drone-swarm-search?
[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 (@renatex333) 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?

kanishkan91 commented 2 months ago

@renatex333, @draabe , @wob86, This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above.

For @draabe and @wob86 - Both reviewers have checklists at the top of this thread (in that first comment) with the JOSS requirements. 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.

As you are probably already aware, 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, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6746 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). 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 the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks but please make a start well ahead of this as JOSS reviews are by their nature iterative and any early feedback you may be able to provide to the author will be very helpful in meeting this schedule.

Thanks in advance and let me know if you have any questions!!

renatex333 commented 2 months ago

Hi!

I am thrilled to have our paper reviewed by you. I truly appreciate the time and effort you are dedicating to this process.

I wanted to inform you that I have a newer version of the manuscript in which I corrected an error in the bibliography that was present in the originally submitted version. I kindly request your guidance on how I can submit this updated version for your consideration.

If there is anything else I can do to assist in this process or provide further information, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Thank you once again for your valuable time and feedback!

wob86 commented 2 months ago

Review checklist for @wob86

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/pfeinsper/drone-swarm-search?
[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 (@renatex333) 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?

kanishkan91 commented 1 month ago

@draabe @wob86 - Just wanted to check in. How's this review going? Let me know if you need anything from my side. Thanks again for your review on this!

draabe commented 1 month ago

Hi @kanishkan91 - all going well so far, I have scheduled the completion of the first round review within the next two weeks.

draabe commented 1 month ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

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

kanishkan91 commented 1 month ago

@draabe , @wob86 and @renatex333, just wanted to check in again. How's the review going? I see both reviewers have started on their checklists, which is great! Can the reviewers provide an update on how the review is going and if anything is required from me or the authors? When you indicate that the review is complete, I can ask the author to ensure everything is addressed. Let me know what you think. Thanks again for all your help!!

draabe commented 1 month ago

Hi @kanishkan91,

thanks for checking in. I've completed the first round of review, and believe the package is rather complete and on the right track. The package works fine, the most important parts are in place, documentation is extensive, and the paper is really well written.

There's been some confusion on my end with respect to the overall functionality and documentation as the package is split across two repositories (cf https://github.com/pfeinsper/drone-swarm-search/issues/262).

Some minor improvements on the paper have already been adressed (https://github.com/pfeinsper/drone-swarm-search/issues/260), as well as clarification on the author list (https://github.com/pfeinsper/drone-swarm-search/issues/258).

@renatex333 Please give ma ping once you've adressed these points and the updated paper compiles, and I'm happy to start a second round of review!

Let me know if anything is unclear in the interim.

kanishkan91 commented 1 month ago

Thanks. This is great. @wob86 could you share a quick update on your review as well? I saw that you had completed parts of your checklist. But, could you let me know if you need anything from me or the author? Thank you!

@renatex333 I think you can start responding to the existing comments (unless you already did that!) Once you are done responding, just ping me here again and we can take it from there. Thanks again!

renatex333 commented 1 month ago

Hi @draabe and @kanishkan91!

I've just finished addressing some issues in the repository, and I believe it's ready to move forward! As always, I'm here to assist with any questions you may have. Thank you for your reviews and ongoing support.

kanishkan91 commented 1 month ago

@renatex333 Thanks! I'm waiting on @wob86 to confirm their side of the review.

In the meantime, @draabe could you take a look to see if your issues are addressed? If so, you can check off your remaining items on the checklist.

Thanks everyone!

wob86 commented 1 month ago

Hi, sorry for the delay but I was on leave, first round of reviewing completed for me and one issue raised regarding testing.

kanishkan91 commented 1 month ago

@wob86 No worries at all! We are still within the prescribed timeline.

@renatex333 Could you take a look at the issue posted by the other reviewer. Once you respond, I'l pass it back to the reviewers for a second round.

renatex333 commented 1 month ago

Hi @kanishkan91,

I've just finished addressing the latest issue.

kanishkan91 commented 1 month ago

@wob86 and @draabe. seems the author has addressed all issues raised thus far. Would you mind taking another pass over the next week seeing if you are satisfied? Once you guys give the go ahead, I'l take a read through of the paper and the repo.

Thanks everyone for this timely and insightful review!

draabe commented 1 month ago

Hi @kanishkan91 , I'm unavailable next week, but I should be able to check everything the week after!

kanishkan91 commented 3 weeks ago

@editorialbot remind @wob86 in 3 days

editorialbot commented 3 weeks ago

Reminder set for @wob86 in 3 days

kanishkan91 commented 3 weeks ago

@editorialbot remind @draabe in 3 days

editorialbot commented 3 weeks ago

Reminder set for @draabe in 3 days

editorialbot commented 3 weeks ago

:wave: @wob86, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

editorialbot commented 3 weeks ago

:wave: @draabe, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

wob86 commented 3 weeks ago

@kanishkan91 I am happy the issue I raised has been fixed and I am happy with everything else, checklist is completed so I am happy to accept.

draabe commented 3 weeks ago

@kanishkan91 Same here. The authors have made an outstanding effort to fix the raised issues and I see nothing left that is unclear, so I recommend accept.

kanishkan91 commented 2 weeks ago

👋 @renatex333 - Looks like we are getting close! I'm taking a read through the latest manuscript. In the meanwhile, we need to set up the archive for your new release. Thanks a ton to @draabe and @wob86 for your insightful and timely reviews!

We want to make sure the archival has the correct metadata that JOSS requires. This includes a title that matches the paper title and a correct author list.

So as next steps for you:

[ ] Conduct a GitHub release of the current reviewed version of the software and archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g., figshare, an institutional repository). Please ensure that the software archive uses the same license as the license you have posted on GitHub.
[ ] Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) to ensure it has the correct metadata. This includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list matches the people and order in your paper). You may also add the authors' ORCID.
[ ] Check that software archive exists and title and author list match JOSS paper (or purposefully do not).
[ ] Please respond with the 1) version and 2) DOI of the archived version here

kanishkan91 commented 2 weeks ago

@renatex333 - Any update on the above?

renatex333 commented 2 weeks ago

Hi @kanishkan91,

I've just finished adding the final touches to the repository! If you have any questions, feel free to reach out.

The project is now under version 0.2.5 and the DOI is 10.5281/zenodo.12659848.

kanishkan91 commented 2 weeks ago

@editorialbot check references