[REVIEW]: Dimensionally Aligned Signal Processing Algorithms Library

editorialbot commented 3 weeks ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@jcupsmith@kellyrowland<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @samiralavi, @lucaferranti Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a1269ccbe9660cb4387d21245d16e03c"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a1269ccbe9660cb4387d21245d16e03c/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a1269ccbe9660cb4387d21245d16e03c/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a1269ccbe9660cb4387d21245d16e03c)

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

@samiralavi & @lucaferranti, 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 @kellyrowland 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 @lucaferranti

📝 Checklist for @samiralavi

editorialbot commented 3 weeks 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 weeks ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.03 s (806.1 files/s, 185859.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                           9            309            331           1243
Jupyter Notebook                 2              0           1705            477
XML                              1              0              0            417
Markdown                         4             50              0            123
TeX                              1              8              0             72
YAML                             2              0              1             62
make                             1              9              1             32
TOML                             1              0              0              2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            21            376           2038           2428
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

     5  Jacob

editorialbot commented 3 weeks ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/TEMC.2017.2692962 is OK
- 10.1109/TASL.2008.919073 is OK
- 10.1109/TSG.2018.2883795 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Black - The Uncompromising Code Formatter
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Flake8 - Your Tool For Style Guide Enforcement
- No DOI given, and none found for title: pre-commit - A framework for managing and maintain...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: NILMTK: An open source toolkit for non-intrusive l...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Large Scale Radio Frequency Signal Classification
- No DOI given, and none found for title: source-separation-AHS

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 3 weeks ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1247

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 3 weeks ago

License info:

✅ License found: BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

editorialbot commented 3 weeks ago

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

lucaferranti commented 3 weeks ago

Review checklist for @lucaferranti

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/ORNL/dasp-stacker?
[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 (@jcupsmith) 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.
[ ] 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?

lucaferranti commented 3 weeks ago

@kellyrowland do you know if the github preview for joss is broken? I've seen it failing fairly consistency recently with the error

Error rendering embedded code invalid pdf

kellyrowland commented 3 weeks ago

hmm, for viewing the article proof on github?

I'm seeing a rendered PDF at https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/blob/joss.06866/joss.06866/10.21105.joss.06866.pdf , but please let me know if you're referring to something else.

lucaferranti commented 3 weeks ago

yeah, I'm referring to the article preview, clicking your link I get

I'm on chrome 114.0.5735.198

kellyrowland commented 3 weeks ago

gotcha, thanks. I haven't seen that as a known or widespread issue, so you might try the usual clearing cookies/cache or even updating Chrome (I'm using Chrome 125.0.6422.142 with the PDF showing up in-browser). less convenient, but the PDF should be viewable via download either way.

samiralavi commented 3 weeks ago

Review checklist for @samiralavi

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/ORNL/dasp-stacker?
[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 (@jcupsmith) 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).
[ ] 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?

samiralavi commented 3 weeks ago

I couldn't confirm Contribution and authorship and I have created this issue on the source repo: https://github.com/ORNL/dasp-stacker/issues/1

kellyrowland commented 4 days ago

@samiralavi thanks for opening that issue, it looks like it's been resolved. just a ping here on the review status, please let me know if you need to set things down.

likewise @lucaferranti - thanks for getting started on your review, please let me know if you need to set things down.

samiralavi commented 3 days ago

Thanks @kellyrowland for the reminder. I can see that the issue is resolved and I continued with the rest of the review. @jcupsmith I have created the following issues to be addressed based on the review criteria mentioned above:

https://github.com/ORNL/dasp-stacker/issues/2 https://github.com/ORNL/dasp-stacker/issues/3 https://github.com/ORNL/dasp-stacker/issues/4

I am happy to recommend the paper after these issues are resolved.

openjournals / joss-reviews