Open editorialbot opened 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
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1007/978-3-030-00934-2_30 is OK
- 10.1109/WACV45572.2020.9093435 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-020-01018-x is OK
- 10.1016/j.media.2019.101563 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-017-17204-5 is OK
- 10.3389/fgene.2021.639930 is OK
- 10.1038/ng.2764 is OK
- 10.1200/CCI.18.00157 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Automatic differentiation in PyTorch
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The OpenCV Library
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Distilling the knowledge in a neural network
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Teacher-student architecture for knowledge learnin...
INVALID DOIs
- None
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.03 s (1153.5 files/s, 141209.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 14 450 669 1194
reStructuredText 6 315 102 395
Markdown 3 117 0 259
TeX 1 14 0 109
Dockerfile 1 12 9 27
DOS Batch 1 8 1 26
INI 1 1 0 18
CSS 1 3 2 16
YAML 1 3 0 12
JavaScript 1 1 1 11
make 1 4 7 9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 31 928 791 2076
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
20 petroslk
5 JulienMassonnet
4 Petros
2 JonatanBonjour
Paper file info:
π Wordcount for paper.md
is 2202
β
The paper includes a Statement of need
section
License info:
β
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:
Hello again! πβ¨
@NetoPedro, @PingJunChen
FYI @petroslk
This is the review thread for the paper. All of our higher-level communications will happen here from now on, review comments and discussion can happen in the repository of the project (details below).
π Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the comment from our editorialbot (above).
β All reviewers get their own checklist with the JOSS requirements - you generate them as per the details in the editorialbot comment. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied.
π» The JOSS review is different from most other journals: The reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention the link to https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/7022 so that a link is created to this thread. That will also help me to keep track!
β Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread if you are unsure about something!
π― We aim for the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks but please make a start well ahead of this as JOSS reviews are by their nature iterative and any early feedback you may be able to provide to the author will be very helpful in meeting this schedule.
@sappelhoff The authors have addressed my minor concerns. I believe HoverFast would be a quite useful tool for the computational pathology community, particularly considering its speedy inference compared to Hover-Net. I recommend its acceptance for publication.
Hey @NetoPedro π it's been a while! Do you have any updates on the timeline of completing your review for HoverFast?
Hey @sappelhoff , I intend to finish it this week/weekend!
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@petroslk<!--end-author-handle-- (Petros Liakopoulos) Repository: https://github.com/choosehappy/HoverFast Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main Version: v1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@sappelhoff<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @PingjunChen, @NetoPedro 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
@PingjunChen & @NetoPedro, 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 @sappelhoff know.
β¨ 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 β¨
Checklists
π Checklist for @PingjunChen
π Checklist for @NetoPedro