[PRE REVIEW]: SPECTPSFToolbox: A Python Toolbox for SPECT Point Spread Function Modeling

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@lukepolson<!--end-author-handle-- (Lucas Polson) Repository: https://github.com/lukepolson/SPECTPSFToolbox Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v0.1.0 Editor: Pending Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Kevin M. Moerman

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e349e7cdcac119ab43b43f687ad29236"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e349e7cdcac119ab43b43f687ad29236/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e349e7cdcac119ab43b43f687ad29236/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e349e7cdcac119ab43b43f687ad29236)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @lukepolson. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@lukepolson if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, 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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.03 s (787.0 files/s, 209301.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jupyter Notebook                10              0           2971            861
Python                           5            173            472            717
TeX                              1             21              0            208
Markdown                         2             25              0             70
TOML                             1              8              0             40
Bourne Shell                     2              3              2             14
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            21            230           3445           1910
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

     5  lukepolson
     1  Luke Polson

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1648

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

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

[editorialbot]

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf. Problem with ORCID (0000-0000-0000-0000) for Luke Polson. Invalid ORCID.

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/42.363108 is OK
- 10.1109/42.52985 is OK
- 10.1109/TNS.2002.998681 is OK
- 10.1109/NSSMIC.2006.354345 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-6560/aa6911 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-6560/aadac1 is OK
- 10.1109/TMI.2003.812251 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4614-7657-3_19 is OK
- 10.1109/NSS/MIC42677.2020.9507966 is OK
- 10.21037/atm-20-5988 is OK
- 10.1007/s00259-022-06092-1 is OK
- 10.1007/s00259-024-06681-2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1097/mnm.0000000000001675 may be a valid DOI for title: Anatomically guided reconstruction improves lesion...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PyTomography: A Python Library for Quantitative Me...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Foundations of Image Science
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Targeted α-therapy of metastatic castration-resist...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Predictors of overall and disease-free survival in...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: First clinical results for PSMA-targeted α-therapy...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Molecular imaging and biochemical response assessm...

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2607(89)90111-9 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot query scope

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@lukepolson Dear author, thanks for this submission. I am the AEiC on this track and here to help process the initial steps. I have briefly reviewed this submission and the repository. Unfortunately I will need to reject this submission at this point, as it does not conform to our substantial scholarly effort criteria. Below is a list of points which caused me to reject the submission, and which you should address in case you are considering a future re-submission.

• The submission is of a relatively small size (~717 lines of code appear to capture core functionality)
• The contribution history appears to show less than 3 months of work. Although work could have occurred off line, it is typically a sign of low maturity as evident also by the lack of forks/issues/stars/follows and community engagement with the work.
• Your project appears to lack contributing guidelines at the moment. Please work to add these and to mention/link to them in your README. You could for instance create a CONTRIBUTING.md file (see here for some examples: https://contributing.md/example/).
• The project appears to lack dedicated documentation and automated testing (or at least the README does not link to them)
• The README is too short and short include a brief description of the software, links to installation/getting started, documentation, testing, contributing guidelines etc (in addition since your project features imaging, some graphical examples/visualisations may be good to include). Here are three examples of more complete READMEs for Python projects:
  • https://github.com/sunpy/sunpy
  • https://github.com/astropy/astropy
  • https://github.com/paucablop/chemotools

Note that the above python projects also show examples of automated testing/continuous integration.

I have not reviewed your paper in detail but I can add the following about the paper:

• Please study the above paper compilation error, it looks like you need to fix the ORCID id for one author. Check our documentation on this too if needed.
• Please study the above reference check :point_up: and see if you can address any of the reported potential DOI issues.

If you were to address all of the above points we'd welcome a re-submission. Hope this feedback helps.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot reject

[editorialbot]

Paper rejected.

[lukepolson]

Hi @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman , thanks for the in depth comments. I'm currently in the process of updating the repo to conform to these standards. There's not really a whole lot that I can do about the number of lines of code, but I can certainly fix the other issues. Let me know your thoughts.