[REVIEW]: DelaunayTriangulation.jl: A Julia package for Delaunay triangulations and Voronoi tessellations in the plane

editorialbot commented 2 weeks ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@DanielVandH@vissarion<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @PieterjanRobbe, @mtsch Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9f806b9bc4dd2f31f5e7ca67b64448bd"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9f806b9bc4dd2f31f5e7ca67b64448bd/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9f806b9bc4dd2f31f5e7ca67b64448bd/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9f806b9bc4dd2f31f5e7ca67b64448bd)

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

@PieterjanRobbe & @mtsch, 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 @vissarion 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 @PieterjanRobbe

📝 Checklist for @mtsch

editorialbot commented 2 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 2 weeks ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.45 s (619.8 files/s, 167654.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                          187           5186          11288          41961
Markdown                        75           2053              0           9646
TOML                             6            705              2           3323
TeX                              1             25              0            246
YAML                             6              9             11            175
JSON                             1              0              0             22
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           276           7978          11301          55373
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   534  DanielVandH
    49  Daniel VandenHeuvel
     3  dependabot[bot]
     2  Júlio Hoffimann
     1  CompatHelper Julia
     1  Simon
     1  himcraft

editorialbot commented 2 weeks ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 973

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 2 weeks ago

License info:

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

editorialbot commented 2 weeks ago

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1142/8685 is OK
- 10.1016/S0925-7721(98)00035-2 is OK
- 10.14288/1.0067778 is OK
- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1016/S0168-874X(96)00054-6 is OK
- 10.1137/050643568 is OK
- 10.1016/S0070-2153(07)81013-1 is OK
- 10.1137/S0036144599352836 is OK
- 10.1007/s00285-024-02045-4 is OK
- 10.1007/BFb0014497 is OK
- 10.1109/WCICA.2008.4593771 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1002/nme.2579 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cej.2023.145776 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03349 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.11178646 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.11176971 is OK
- 10.1017/CBO9780511606014 is OK
- 10.1088/1751-8121/ac4a1d is OK
- 10.1007/PL00009321 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Delaunay Mesh Generation
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Natural neighbor interpolation - critical assessme...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ExactPredicates.jl: Fast and exact geometrical pre...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: AdaptivePredicates.jl: Port of Shewchuk’s robust p...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: MATLAB version: R2024a
- No DOI given, and none found for title: CGAL User and Reference Manual

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 2 weeks ago

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

PieterjanRobbe commented 2 weeks ago

Review checklist for @PieterjanRobbe

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/JuliaGeometry/DelaunayTriangulation.jl?
[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 (@DanielVandH) 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).
[x] 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?
[x] 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?

mtsch commented 2 weeks ago

Review checklist for @mtsch

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/JuliaGeometry/DelaunayTriangulation.jl?
[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 (@DanielVandH) 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?
[ ] 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).
[x] 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?
[x] 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?

DanielVandH commented 1 week ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

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:

DanielVandH commented 1 week ago

I've made some changes in response to @PieterjanRobbe's comments over at https://github.com/JuliaGeometry/DelaunayTriangulation.jl/issues/181, and made some other minor changes. The pdf has been regenerated, see above. To summarise:

Since I just finished implementing weighted triangulations and power diagrams this weekend, I've mentioned them in the summary as a feature that the package supports.
I changed the language of "The most feature-rich" in comparing my package to other software. I now just claim to support features that most of the other packages don't support, which I think should be appropriate. I also now mention that there are other Julia packages that support triangulations, and link to where I discuss that in my package's README since it would be a bit cluttered to also do a full comparison in the paper.
The summary paragraphs have been reordered. I now mention the package first and then, in the second paragraph, define triangulations and tessellations.
Since random power diagrams often look bad, I changed the README example to use a rng object for reproducibility. I also made the example use a bit less text width.

Thanks again to @PieterjanRobbe for the comments, I appreciate it.

openjournals / joss-reviews