[REVIEW]: ICAT: The Interactive Corpus Analysis Tool

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@WarmCyan@JBorrow<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @SamHames, @jhagerer Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0528d60ff4f251069d15456fdb83bd0f"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0528d60ff4f251069d15456fdb83bd0f/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0528d60ff4f251069d15456fdb83bd0f/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0528d60ff4f251069d15456fdb83bd0f)

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

@SamHames & @jhagerer, 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 @JBorrow 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 @SamHames

editorialbot commented 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

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.14 s (1023.5 files/s, 314809.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML                            37           6489            182          18202
SVG                              6              6              6           4476
Python                          22           1051           1446           3640
Jupyter Notebook                14              0           3223            951
CSS                              6            185             42            842
JavaScript                       8            123            183            778
reStructuredText                34            485            943            276
Markdown                         5            102              0            183
YAML                             5              9             12            139
TeX                              1             12              0            138
make                             2             16              9             54
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
Bourne Shell                     1              8             10             20
JSON                             1              0              0              8
TOML                             1              1              0              8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           144           8495           6057          29741
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   136  Martindale, Nathan
     2  Nathan Martindale

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1543

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/3185517 is OK
- 10.1145/3593013.3594087 is OK
- 10.1609/aimag.v35i4.2513 is OK
- 10.1109/TAMD.2010.2051030 is OK
- 10.1145/3241379 is OK
- 10.1145/604045.604056 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Machine Teaching: A New Paradigm for Building Mach...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Panel: The powerful data exploration & web app fra...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ipyvuetify: Jupyter widgets based on vuetify UI co...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

License info:

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

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

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

JBorrow commented 1 month ago

Hi @WarmCyan! Would you please be able to address the missing DOIs in the references?

SamHames commented 1 month ago

Review checklist for @SamHames

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/icat?
[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 (@WarmCyan) 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
[ ] 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?

WarmCyan commented 1 month ago

Hello @JBorrow! I've added DOIs for all except ipyvuetify, I couldn't find anything for that one

WarmCyan commented 1 month ago

@SamHames thanks for agreeing to review this! Just so you're aware if you start playing with the software soon, there's a couple weird issues going on right now with dependencies that I'm still trying to resolve, if you run into problems during setup I'm tracking them over here: https://github.com/ORNL/icat/issues/44

jhrinv commented 1 month ago

Hi all, I am in contact with the authors. They have been actively working to fix some issues in the repository (broken package dependencies die to updates). I'll investigate the fixes and latest end of next week. I provide my checklist here then too. Thanks for your patience.

jhagerer commented 3 weeks ago

Review checklist for @jhagerer (-> still in process!!!)

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/icat?
[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 (@WarmCyan) 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
[ ] 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

[x] 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?
[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)?
[ ] 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?

jhagerer commented 3 weeks ago

This review is still in process. Issues with the code repository still have to be analyzed and fixed, see https://github.com/ORNL/icat/issues/44.

openjournals / joss-reviews