[REVIEW]: MultichannelGPR: A MATLAB tool for GPR data processing

editorialbot commented 3 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@tinawunderlich@martinfleis<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @LyceanEM, @lrverdon Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7f560ecf0c44b21a0f4188aced264fa8"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7f560ecf0c44b21a0f4188aced264fa8/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7f560ecf0c44b21a0f4188aced264fa8/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7f560ecf0c44b21a0f4188aced264fa8)

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

@LyceanEM & @lrverdon, 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 @martinfleis 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 @LyceanEM

📝 Checklist for @lrverdon

editorialbot commented 3 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 3 months ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.23 s (553.9 files/s, 161966.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MATLAB                         126           4309           6264          27144
TeX                              1             19              0            184
Markdown                         2             22              0             46
YAML                             1              2              4             22
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           130           4352           6268          27396
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    54  Tina Wunderlich
    16  tinawunderlich

editorialbot commented 3 months ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1147

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 3 months ago

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU General Public License v3.0 (Check here for OSI approval)

editorialbot commented 3 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/1-4020-3102-5_7 is OK
- 10.1144/jgs2023-042 is OK
- 10.3390/rs14030781 is OK
- 10.3390/rs15143647 is OK
- 10.1111/sum.12964 is OK
- 10.1109/ICGPR.2018.8441658 is OK
- 10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B1-2022-85-2022 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-0-12-812429-1.00010-6 is OK
- 10.1190/tle39050332.1 is OK
- 10.1109/ICGPR.2010.5550131 is OK
- 10.1002/arp.1599 is OK
- 10.1109/ICGPR.2010.5550131 is OK
- 10.5194/tc-4-475-2010 is OK
- 10.4000/archeosciences.10100 is OK
- 10.3390/rs14153665 is OK
- 10.38072/978-3-928794-83-1/p61 is OK
- 10.2139/ssrn.4554610 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: MultichannelGPR: A MATLAB tool for GPR data proces...

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 3 months ago

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

martinfleis commented 3 months ago

👋🏼 @tinawunderlich, @LyceanEM, @lrverdon this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

All reviewers should create checklists with the JOSS requirements using the command @editorialbot generate my 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.

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 small pull requests if needed) on the software repository. When doing so, please mention https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6767 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 reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks, feel free to start whenever it works for you. Please let me know if any of you require significantly more time at any point. We can also use editorialbot to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

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

Thanks!

LyceanEM commented 3 months ago

Review checklist for @LyceanEM

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/tinawunderlich/MultichannelGPR?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[ ] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@tinawunderlich) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[ ] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[ ] 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.
[ ] 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

[ ] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[ ] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[ ] 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

[ ] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[ ] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[ ] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[ ] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[ ] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[ ] 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

[ ] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[ ] 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?
[ ] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[ ] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[ ] 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?

lrverdon commented 2 months ago

Review checklist for @lrverdon

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/tinawunderlich/MultichannelGPR?
[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 (@tinawunderlich) 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

[ ] 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?
[ ] 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?

martinfleis commented 2 months ago

Hey @LyceanEM, @lrverdon,

Thanks for starting your reviews! Do you have any estimation on when we could expect them to be finalised?

Thanks!

martinfleis commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot remind @lrverdon in two weeks

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Reminder set for @lrverdon in two weeks

martinfleis commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot remind @LyceanEM in two weeks

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Reminder set for @LyceanEM in two weeks

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

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

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

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

lrverdon commented 1 month ago

Hi @martinfleis,

I have nearly completed the review (sorry for the late submission, due to a long field campaign abroad)

I have a few minor problems with the software, which I could submit as an issue in the software repository, and also a list of small comments (e.g. typos, small errors or things that could be clarified in the software paper or in the Wiki in the repository). How is it best to communicate these? Should I add them below as comments in this review? Thank you.

martinfleis commented 1 month ago

@lrverdon The best is to open an issue in the repository and include a link to this issue in there. That way there is crosslink from this issue to any issue you open there and I can follow the process.

martinfleis commented 3 weeks ago

@LyceanEM are there any updates or estimations from your side? I am fully aware of the ongoing holiday period so don't feel pressured to look at the review now. It is just to get a sense of the progress. Thanks!

LyceanEM commented 2 weeks ago

@martinfleis My apologies for the delay, I expect to go through the review in full next week.

openjournals / joss-reviews