[REVIEW]: anywidget: reusable widgets for interactive analysis and visualization in computational notebooks

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@manzt@hugoledoux<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @kylebarron, @ianhi Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b1884ec01c408cf3afdc8c2c0c3a52c9"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b1884ec01c408cf3afdc8c2c0c3a52c9/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b1884ec01c408cf3afdc8c2c0c3a52c9/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b1884ec01c408cf3afdc8c2c0c3a52c9)

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

@kylebarron & @ianhi, 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 @hugoledoux 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 @kylebarron

📝 Checklist for @ianhi

editorialbot commented 1 week 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 week ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.4539666 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7287626 is OK
- 10.1145/3545995 is OK
- 10.1002/spe.3098 is OK
- 10.1145/3544548.3580753 is OK
- 10.1145/3313831.3376442 is OK
- 10.1145/3544548.3580965 is OK
- 10.1145/3510003.3510203 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2205.03963 is OK
- 10.1145/3613905.3650848 is OK
- 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 is OK
- 10.22541/au.161298309.98344404/v3 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3327189 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0627-0 is OK
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btad050 is OK
- 10.31219/osf.io/y8thv is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-022-01482-7 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01057 is OK
- 10.31219/osf.io/pyn7u is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.11403810 is OK
- 10.31219/osf.io/puxnf is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: And Voilà!
- No DOI given, and none found for title: nbconvert
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Jupyter Scatter
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Lonboard
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ipyaladin: Enabling Aladin Lite in Jupyter Noteboo...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: drawdata
- No DOI given, and none found for title: anyhtmlwidget
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ipywidgets: Interactive widgets for the Jupyter No...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: marimo
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ECMAScript® 2023 Language Specification

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.08 s (1490.7 files/s, 315134.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAML                             8           2543              6           8886
Markdown                        25           1075              0           3171
Python                          17            629            533           1544
JavaScript                      15            201            368           1428
TypeScript                      18            146            179           1245
CSS                              7             93             37            654
TeX                              1             32              2            638
JSON                            21              0              0            420
TOML                             1             19              8            147
Jupyter Notebook                 3              1            805             86
SVG                              1              7              0             31
Svelte                           1              3              0              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           118           4749           1938          18259
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   302  Trevor Manz
   105  dependabot[bot]
    73  github-actions[bot]
    41  Talley Lambert
     5  Jan-Hendrik Müller
     5  Kyle Kelley
     3  David Kouřil
     2  David Brochart
     2  Manon Marchand
     2  Mark Keller
     2  Quentin Agren
     1  Ben Greiner
     1  Daria Vasyukova
     1  Dominik Moritz
     1  Don McCurdy
     1  Hervé BREDIN
     1  Jeremy Tuloup
     1  Jon Mease
     1  Kyle Barron
     1  Nezar Abdennur
     1  Péter Gyarmati
     1  Qiusheng Wu
     1  Ryan Morshead

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1687

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

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

kylebarron commented 1 week ago

Review checklist for @kylebarron

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/manzt/anywidget?
[ ] 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 (@manzt) 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?

kylebarron commented 5 days ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

kylebarron commented 5 days ago

Not sure of the best way to access the PDF version of the paper, so I'm trying that

editorialbot commented 5 days ago

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

ianhi commented 2 days ago

Review checklist for @ianhi

Conflict of interest

[ ] 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

[ ] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[ ] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/manzt/anywidget?
[ ] 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 (@manzt) 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?

openjournals / joss-reviews