Open editorialbot opened 1 month 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
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.04 s (1576.2 files/s, 132499.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 44 766 1278 1992
reStructuredText 11 162 139 514
Markdown 5 61 0 365
YAML 4 25 5 167
TeX 1 10 0 93
DOS Batch 1 8 1 26
make 1 4 7 9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 67 1036 1430 3166
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
1 m-shahbaz-kharal
Paper file info:
π Wordcount for paper.md
is 806
β
The paper includes a Statement of need
section
License info:
β
License found: MIT License
(Valid open source OSI approved license)
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.21105/joss.03471 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00990 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1109/icra.2011.5980567 may be a valid DOI for title: 3D is here: Point Cloud Library (PCL)
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Open3D: A Modern Library for 3D Data Processing
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Laspy
- No DOI given, and none found for title: pyntcloud
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The OpenCV Library
- 10.1177/0278364913491297 may be a valid DOI for title: Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset
- No DOI given, and none found for title: OpenPCDet: An Open-source Toolbox for 3D Object De...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: MMDetection3D: OpenMMLab next-generation platform ...
INVALID DOIs
- None
@chenzhaiyu @tgoelles just a small reminder not to forget this review
Mine can be found here: https://github.com/m-shahbaz-kharal/LiGuard-JOSS/issues/1 I can not checkoff all the points. See my reasoning in my review there.
I will complete my review by next week.
I missed this @tgoelles sorry. I think it's better if the review is here but this is fine.
I agree with most of @tgoelles points, and while the 2nd reviewer will do his review next week, I am interested in hearing about the main point raised:
Actually, the authors recommend "reject" but this is not really how JOSS proceeds. We aim at bringing the submission to a certain standard that we deem accepted, in this case when all the checklists can be checked.
The authors present a Python GUI for processing LiDAR data, optionally accompanying imagery. They claim the contribution user-friendly with five sub-modules for IO, configuration, inter-process data sharing, data processing, and visualization.
Open3D
and OpenCV
(line 44). It would be more appropriate to state clearly the diference from existing libs (not limited to the two), highlighting the authors' unique contributions rather than making broad claims.Hi, I believe all the reviews are submitted as the assigned reviewers (@chenzhaiyu and @tgoelles) have submitted their responses; please inform me if that is not correct. In the following the response to the reviews is submitted.
Dear Reviewers,
Thanks for a thorough review. The submitted comments/recommendations/decisions helped us a lot in understanding the process of publication in JOSS more clearly, and more importantly, it has helped us see the potential issues in both the paper and the code/repository. The issues discussed in the reviews primarily included incomprehensive statement-of-need, missing references and comparisons to some similar libraries, broader (than evident) claims, improper tests and documentation, and a lack of enough commit history. Based on the comment from @hugoledoux ("We aim at bringing the submission to a certain standard that we deem accepted, in this case when all the checklists can be checked."), it seems like the submission can be improved and eventually published if it checks all the requirements; please inform us if that is not the case for this submission.
While it may take us sometime before all the raised points/concerns are covered/fixed, some quick comments are provided in the following to answer some of those questions.
LiGuard
but) are not published yet. Since it is not confirmed, as of the moment, if and when those algorithms are going to be made available, we created this repo and added only the files required to run the software. However, since the commit history is required for the JOSS review process, the reviewers (@hugoledoux, @chenzhaiyu, @tgoelles) are being added as collaborators to that repo so the commit history can be reviewed. ROS
: The comparison to ROS
is deliberately not added for this project as it seems to us that it is not an apple-to-apple comparison. ROS
is a meta-operating system whereas LiGuard
is focused only on processing point-cloud (and accompanying image) data. Therefore, a reference to it will be added for completeness purpose but since ROS
and LiGuard
serve a different purpose, a detailed comparison seems unnecessary..bin
, npy
, .ply
, and .pcd
(most of these are supported by Open3D
so those are supported by extension) and for images imread
function of OpenCV
is used so all supported image file-types supported by OpenCV
are also supported in our software (by extension).Windows 11
using Python 3.10.0
and although our docs say that it should run as far as the dependencies are installed but as @tgoelles pointed out that's not the case. So, for now, the only environment it should be tested on is Windows 10
with Python 3.10.0
(we'll reflect this statement in the docs). Also, we'll update docs as more operating systems are tested.Updates in Paper: Based on the reviews, a major re-writing of the paper is needed. So, although the title and basics of the submission may remain similar, an improved version of the paper.md will be submitted that'll include a comprehensive statement-of-need, missed references, revised claims, novelty statement(s), and comparison to related SOTA packages.
Updates in Repository: Following are the major planned updates to the repo:
LiGuard
.Note: The updates will be posted and informed in this thread in the same order as given in Summary of Future Updates above. Please let us know if anything is still missing/unaccounted from our side regarding the review process.
Thanks.
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@m-shahbaz-kharal<!--end-author-handle-- (Muhammad Shahbaz ) Repository: https://github.com/m-shahbaz-kharal/LiGuard-JOSS Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main Version: v1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@hugoledoux<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @chenzhaiyu, @tgoelles Archive: Pending
Status
Status badge code:
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
@chenzhaiyu & @tgoelles, 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:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @hugoledoux know.
β¨ 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 β¨
Checklists
π Checklist for @chenzhaiyu
π Checklist for @tgoelles