Open editorialbot opened 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
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.48550/arXiv.2006.10204 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4842-4470-8 is OK
- 10.1038/s41746-023-00775-1 is OK
- 10.7326/0003-4819-157-1-201207030-00450 is OK
- 10.1109/TPAMI.2019.2929257 is OK
- 10.2307/2683591 is OK
- 10.1186/s40798-018-0139-y is OK
- 10.1007/s00167-021-06709-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-020-17807-z is OK
- 10.1038/s41593-018-0209-y is OK
- 10.2139/ssrn.3413035 is OK
- 10.1080/24748668.2008.11868456 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04362 is OK
- 10.1080/00140139.2015.1057238 is OK
- 10.1101/2022.07.07.499061 is OK
- 10.2307/41410412 is OK
- 10.7717/peerj.12995 is OK
- 10.1152/japplphysiol.00772.2007 is OK
- 10.1145/3603618 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The OpenCV Library
- No DOI given, and none found for title: On the theory of filter amplifiers
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Kinovea - A microscope for your videos
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A 3D markerless protocol with action cameras – Key...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Gait analysis: an introduction
INVALID DOIs
- None
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.04 s (572.0 files/s, 243661.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XML 1 0 931 1911
Python 11 424 690 1380
Jupyter Notebook 1 0 2816 298
Markdown 2 112 0 245
TeX 1 23 0 241
TOML 3 38 39 96
YAML 3 17 14 96
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 22 614 4490 4267
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
114 David PAGNON
79 davidpagnon
Paper file info:
📄 Wordcount for paper.md
is 1281
✅ The paper includes a Statement of need
section
License info:
✅ License found: BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" 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:
@tuliofalmeida, @nicos1993, @johnjdavisiv This is where the review takes place. To get started, like @johnjdavisiv did just now, you can call @editorialbot generate my checklist
. Thanks again for your help!!! Let me know if you have any questions.
Apologies for the delay in this review. I will complete by the end of this week if that is okay?
Nicos
Hi, thank you Nicos and the other reviewers.
To @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman: @hunminkim98 and I are currently working to make it run in real time, I wonder if it's worth completing the review with the library the way it is, or if it's better to wait?
Note that it could be a couple months because it's not the hottest priority right now.
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ffc549b4-f76f-4fa5-a7d8-6bfae7e702ba
@davidpagnon I suggest we continue with the current state of things as submitted. If you've implemented the features before this review is over we can revisit this. In any case I recommend you implement it with a clear example for instance, so that testing this new functionality is quick and simple, and would not take a lot of additional time.
@tuliofalmeida, @nicos1993, @johnjdavisiv thanks again for your help with this review. Would you be able to provide a quick update on where things stand? Are there some key points the authors should work on? Thanks!
Hey @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman I'm planning to finish this week!
Hello @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman,
I have tested the software using installation option 2 and followed the example, I can confirm the instructions are very clear and the demonstration ran smoothly with no issues. I believe this software will be very useful for coaches or practitioners wishing to perform a 2D automated kinematic analysis.
I do have a couple of suggestions that the author may wish to consider.
Best wishes,
Nicos Haralabidis
Hi Nicos,
Thank you for your review!
I fully agree with your statement that the Demo video was probably not the best, given that it does not lie in the plane. I will replace it with a video of someone doing jumping jacks (frontal plane) and another person doing tuck jumps (sagittal plane).
I believe the joint angle convention is the same as the one from Winter 2009, but I agree that the way it is represented makes it confusing. I will add this figure to the article and the tutorial.
I will ping you once the fixes have been made.
@nicos1993 thanks for your review and comments. Could you respond to the authors reply :point_up: ? Let me know if you are now happy (some of your boxes are not ticked) with this submission or if there are any other points that the authors should work on. Thanks!
@johnjdavisiv thanks for your help with this review. Would you be able to finalise your review shortly? We do have two nearly completed reviews, but if you are able to complete yours that would be great. Thanks!
@tuliofalmeida it looks like you've ticked all boxes. Are you happy to recommend acceptance of this work for JOSS? Thanks for your help!
@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Will be a bit of a stretch to finish it this week, but I can get it done by the end of next!
@johnjdavisiv thanks. Let me know if you have any questions or if you are good to proceed.
@tuliofalmeida it looks like you've ticked all boxes. Are you happy to recommend acceptance of this work for JOSS? Thanks for your help!
Hi @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman, Thank you for following up. Can we wait about a week before acceptance? We made it work in real-time, and we would like to add one or two lines in the paper to mention it. Also, there is still one point that @nicos1993 brought up that has not been taken into account.
@tuliofalmeida it looks like you've ticked all boxes. Are you happy to recommend acceptance of this work for JOSS? Thanks for your help!
I'm sorry, I thought I had already answered you. And yes, I recommend it for publication. It's working well, I reported him a small bug that I found and I also agree with the suggestion that Nico made.
@davidpagnon That is fine. I was not suggesting moving to acceptance yet. I was just trying to get reviewers that are done to complete all the boxes. Once all reviews are finished, and recommendations are in order, we are ready to proceed.
@nicos1993 thanks again for reviewing here. Are you also able to finalize the checklist or are there any remaining issues that need to be addressed?
Hi Nicos,
Thank you for your review!
- I fully agree with your statement that the Demo video was probably not the best, given that it does not lie in the plane. I will replace it with a video of someone doing jumping jacks (frontal plane) and another person doing tuck jumps (sagittal plane).
- I believe the joint angle convention is the same as the one from Winter 2009, but I agree that the way it is represented makes it confusing. I will add this figure to the article and the tutorial.
I will ping you once the fixes have been made.
Hello @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman ,
I believe the changes I suggested regarding the examples in the article and paper have not been made/updated yet (please correct me if I am wrong. I also believe the updated joint angle convention figure has not been included in the article.
Best wishes,
Nicos
You are right, there is more cleaning up to do in the new code than I expected so it takes a bit of time. I'm in a rushed period so it's hard to prioritize it but I'll try to get it done by next week, sorry about it!
@davidpagnon although we are flexible in principle, I do recommend that you make the changes as soon as possible to avoid loosing track of the reviewers. Can you provide an indication as to when the changes will be finished?
@johnjdavisiv can you resume your review please? Thanks!
The new version has been released!
I am now working on editing the paper and fixing the Colab version.
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@DavidPagnon<!--end-author-handle-- (David Pagnon) Repository: https://github.com/davidpagnon/Sports2D Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: 0.3.1 Editor: !--editor-->@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @tuliofalmeida, @nicos1993, @johnjdavisiv 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
@tuliofalmeida & @nicos1993 & @johnjdavisiv, 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 @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman 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 @nicos1993
📝 Checklist for @johnjdavisiv
📝 Checklist for @tuliofalmeida