[PRE REVIEW]: gibbonNetR: an R Package for the Use of Convolutional Neural Networks and TransferLearning on Acoustic Data

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@DenaJGibbon<!--end-author-handle-- (Dena Clink) Repository: https://github.com/DenaJGibbon/gibbonNetR Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: 1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@faroit<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @Desjonqu, @steffilazerte Managing EiC: Kevin M. Moerman

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/40a9136ac136e187df2bbff0bb1afd11"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/40a9136ac136e187df2bbff0bb1afd11/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/40a9136ac136e187df2bbff0bb1afd11/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/40a9136ac136e187df2bbff0bb1afd11)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @DenaJGibbon. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@DenaJGibbon if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, 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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.04 s (669.7 files/s, 150208.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R                               19            473            840           2404
HTML                             1             88              5            805
TeX                              1             39              0            418
Markdown                         3            120              0            340
Rmd                              1             72             90            115
YAML                             1              1              4             18
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            26            793            939           4100
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   105  DenaJGibbon
     4  Dena J. Clink

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1857

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

🟡 License found: Other (Check here for OSI approval)

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot invite @faroit as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[editorialbot]

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

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@faroit :wave: do you think you can help edit this one?

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot invite @faroit as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[faroit]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman I have very little R expertise, but I there isn't anyone available I can do it.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot assign @faroit as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @faroit is now the editor

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@faroit thanks. I think you are the most suitable editor. I'd say your domain expertise is more important than the language. But if you do have R specific questions let me know.

[faroit]

👋 @DenaJGibbon sorry for the slow warmup here. I am now actively looking for reviewers and started approaching a few already. If you happen to have some recommendation yourself please don't hesitate posting them here.

[faroit]

status update, still looking for R experts with domain knowledge

[faroit]

@DenaJGibbon so far no luck. Can you provide some proposals for potential reviewers yourself, please?

also do you think there is a coi with the following potential reviewers?

• expectopatronum
• sneakers-the-rat
• chrisbrickhouse
• steffilazerte

[DenaJGibbon]

Sorry I missed the earlier messages - will make sure to check back here more often. After a quick scan through their GitHub pages I do not think there are any COIs.

I also wonder if any of the authors from this R package might work? It is not acoustics, but uses torch for R, and https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.07.479461v1

Or perhaps the authors of this package? https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/soundClass/index.html

[DenaJGibbon]

@faroit I wanted to check in - how are things going? I can look for other suggested reviewers if that would be helpful. Thanks!

[faroit]

👋 @expectopatronum @sneakers-the-rat @chrisbrickhouse @steffilazerte - would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The JOSS review process takes place on GitHub and focuses on the software and a short paper. We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

The software under review is https://github.com/DenaJGibbon/gibbonNetR

This issue is a "pre-review" issue in which reviewers are assigned. Once sufficient reviewers are recruited we will open a dedicated review issue where the review will take place.

[faroit]

@DenaJGibbon I asked @desjonqu (https://desjonqu.github.io/) via mail to review and she accepted 😄 Again, is there a COI on your side?

[DenaJGibbon]

That is wonderful news @faroit. And no COI as far as I know!

[faroit]

@editorialbot add @Desjonqu to reviewers

[editorialbot]

@Desjonqu added to the reviewers list!

[DenaJGibbon]

@faroit I had a question - I have made some changes to the manuscript. Should I push those to GitHub? Thanks!

[faroit]

@DenaJGibbon yes, of course. You can update the paper at any time. Just use the same branch so that the automatic build process can find the right paper. Also the review process is fluid so you can also update the paper during that phase as well.

[Desjonqu]

@faroit, just to be sure, I will make my assessment and submit it here, is that right?

[faroit]

@Desjonqu thanks for asking. No! please wait for the review process to start. This will then happen in a new github issue. We are still looking for a second reviewer. If you know someone from your community that I could ping, let me know.

[Desjonqu]

@faroit OK, I'll wait then. Thanks! Not sure who could help with this. I'll try to think of someone.

[steffilazerte]

Hi @faroit, I can review with respect to R and R packages and superficially acoustics (my background is a bit dated and more targeted song analysis, no broad bioacoustics and no specialized software), but it might be better to get someone with better expertise than me.

Have you considered Marcelo Araya-Salas? Possibly also Jerome Sueur (author of Seewave)?

[faroit]

👋 @jeromesueur @maRce10 - would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The JOSS review process takes place on GitHub and focuses on the software and a short paper. We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

The software under review is https://github.com/DenaJGibbon/gibbonNetR

This issue is a "pre-review" issue in which reviewers are assigned. Once sufficient reviewers are recruited we will open a dedicated review issue where the review will take place.

[faroit]

@steffilazerte thanks for the recommendation. I pinged them here, so we can wait for their responses. Regardless, I would very much value having you as a reviewer as my own R background is limited. So I would add you in case the other two reviewers are unable to review.

[maRce10]

Hi @faroit, unfortunately I wont be able to review the paper this time around. Cheers

[faroit]

@steffilazerte I was unable to find another reviewer for this submission. I would be very glad if you could review this submission. 🙇

[steffilazerte]

Hi @faroit, I'm happy to review!

[faroit]

@editorialbot add @steffilazerte to reviewers

[editorialbot]

@steffilazerte added to the reviewers list!

[faroit]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/7250.