[REVIEW]: ARCHES PiCar-X: Software for Digital Twin Research

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@AlexanderBarbie@danielskatz<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @mrsonandrade, @AlexanderFabisch Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.13937454

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5d93cc837d4f2cc97aa87b4425d49fc1"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5d93cc837d4f2cc97aa87b4425d49fc1/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5d93cc837d4f2cc97aa87b4425d49fc1/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5d93cc837d4f2cc97aa87b4425d49fc1)

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

@mrsonandrade & @AlexanderFabisch, 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 @danielskatz 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 @AlexanderFabisch

📝 Checklist for @mrsonandrade

editorialbot commented 2 months 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 months ago

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1109/access.2024.3406510 is OK
- 10.3390/sym16020221 is OK
- 10.1109/mic.2021.3065245 is OK
- 10.3289/sw_arches_core_1.0.0 is OK
- 10.1109/MS.2018.2801541 is OK
- 10.1080/00423114.2020.1730917 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2408.13866 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: ACM SIGSOFT Empirical Standards on GitHub
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ARCHES PiCar-X

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.06 s (2142.0 files/s, 142407.8 lines/s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                      files          blank        comment           code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                           31            696           1418           1906
YAML                             18            159              7           1743
Markdown                         27            338              0            974
XML                              26             93             11            597
CMake                             9             58              6            175
Dockerfile                        7             26              0             82
TeX                               1              8              0             82
CSS                               1              8              0             46
Gencat NLS                        4              3              0             22
HTML                              1              3              0             22
JavaScript                        1              4              0             16
Bourne Again Shell                2              0              0              7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            128           1396           1442           5672
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    41  Alexander Barbie
     1  AlexanderBarbie
     1  Wilhelm Hasselbring
     1  abarbie

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1184

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

License info:

✅ License found: Apache License 2.0 (Valid open source OSI approved license)

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

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

danielskatz commented 2 months ago

@mrsonandrade and @AlexanderFabisch - Thanks for agreeing to review this submission. This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

As you can see above, you each should use the command @editorialbot generate my checklist to create your review checklist. @editorialbot commands need to be the first thing in a new comment.

As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#7179 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if either of you require some more time. We can also use editorialbot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@danielskatz) if you have any questions/concerns.

AlexanderFabisch commented 2 months ago

Review checklist for @AlexanderFabisch

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/cau-se/ARCHES-PiCar-X?
[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 (@AlexanderBarbie) 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

JOSS publishes articles about software that represent substantial scholarly effort on the part of the authors. Your software should be a significant contribution to the available open source software that either enables some new research challenges to be addressed or makes addressing research challenges significantly better (e.g., faster, easier, simpler).
[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] No, there is no statement of need in the documentation. Neither in the readme nor in the user guide.
[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] I am not entirely sure here. There are some examples of how to use it with a physical picar, but I cannot test it. There are also examples of how to test the digital twin in an automated test pipeline, which I could test. As I understand that is one of the main applications of the digital twin. Is this correct?
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
- [ ] There is no API documentation. I am not sure if an API documentation is needed, but there should certainly be some additional documentation on how to work with the software apart from "run these docker commands". It could just be a link to a script with some documentation in the comments or some user guide.
[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
- [x] There is an empty section "Contributing" in the readme.

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?

The summary could be improved: referring to

This paper presents a digital twin prototype of...

What is a digital twin and why is it useful?

Our goal is to provide researchers and practitioners with an affordable and straightforward example to explore various concepts of digital twins.

What are these concepts of digital twins? In which way can they be explored?

Moreover, this example can be used to explore all the concepts implemented in a previous project named ARCHES (Autonomous Robotic Networks to help Human Societies), which focused on monitoring and operating an underwater network of ocean observation systems

Again, what are these concepts and how are we able to explore these with the picar?

One of the outcomes of this project was the ARCHES Digital Twin Framework

Can you briefly describe what the ARCHES Digital Twin Framework does and why it is needed?

[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?

Digital twins are becoming increasingly relevant...

Why are they becoming more relevant? Certainly they are useful in a way, but it is not clear to me.

Industrial Internet of Things and Industry 4.0

I think these terms need references.

[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
- The authors claim that there are no other packages that are quickly set up to test digital twin concepts.
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
- [ ] I think the structure could be improved. Here are two suggestions.
  - [ ] As I pointed out before it would be useful to point out which are the digital twin concepts from the ARCHES framework that should be demonstrated by this software and then point out how this is achieved in the following sections.
  - [ ] The description of the Picar, CAD model, and Digital Twin could be one section. If the automated testing pipeline is one of the concepts to be demonstrated in the paper, then I would put it in another section with all the other concepts that the software is supposed to demonstrate.
[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?

AlexanderFabisch commented 2 months ago

@AlexanderBarbie: I have a question regarding this point of the checklist:

Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@AlexanderBarbie) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

According to the list above, your co-author Wilhelm Hasselbring only made one commit to the repositoy

41    Alexander Barbie
1 AlexanderBarbie
1 Wilhelm Hasselbring
1 abarbie

I think this would hardly qualify as an appropriate contribution to claim co-authorship. However, comparing the amount of code and number of commits, I assume that you developed the project internally and pushed it to github without the whole commit history. Can you confirm this? Or did your co-author contribute a significant part to the ~~software~~ project (maybe in any other form)?

danielskatz commented 2 months ago

@AlexanderFabisch - please keep in mind that JOSS is looking for authors to have contributed to the project, which can happen in many ways outside of commits to a repo, though your question is certainly an appropriate one.

AlexanderFabisch commented 2 months ago

@AlexanderFabisch - please keep in mind that JOSS is looking for authors to have contributed to the project, which can happen in many ways outside of commits to a repo, though your question is certainly an appropriate one.

Thanks for pointing this out. I rephrased my question.

mrsonandrade commented 2 months ago

Review checklist for @mrsonandrade

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/cau-se/ARCHES-PiCar-X?
[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 (@AlexanderBarbie) 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?

AlexanderBarbie commented 2 months ago

@AlexanderBarbie: I have a question regarding this point of the checklist:

Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@AlexanderBarbie) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

According to the list above, your co-author Wilhelm Hasselbring only made one commit to the repositoy
41  Alexander Barbie
1   AlexanderBarbie
1   Wilhelm Hasselbring
1   abarbie
I think this would hardly qualify as an appropriate contribution to claim co-authorship. However, comparing the amount of code and number of commits, I assume that you developed the project internally and pushed it to github without the whole commit history. Can you confirm this? Or did your co-author contribute a significant part to the ~software~ project (maybe in any other form)?

@whasselbring and I have been conducting research together for six years on how digital twins, particularly digital twin prototypes, can be developed and applied in robotics. After proving the concept that DTPs work, we collaboratively developed a formal specification of our digital twin concept.

PoC: Barbie, A., Pech, N., Hasselbring, W., Flögel, S., Wenzhöfer, F., Walter, M., … & Sommer, S. (2021). Developing an underwater network of ocean observation systems with digital twin prototypes—a field report from the baltic sea. IEEE Internet Computing, 26(3), 33-42. https://doi.org/10.1109/mic.2021.3065245

Formalization: Barbie, A., & Hasselbring, W. (2024). From Digital Twins to Digital Twin Prototypes: Concepts, Formalization, and Applications. IEEE Access. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2024.3406510

It was his idea to create a low-cost lab experiment to easily demonstrate the results and allow the replication of experiments for other researchers. The PiCar-X emerged from this idea and is used in another publication to illustrate the formal specification with practical examples:

PiCar-X Applied: Barbie, A., & Hasselbring, W. (2024). Toward Reproducibility of Digital Twin Research: Exemplified with the PiCar-X. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13866. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2408.13866

While his direct contribution to the source code may not be extensive, his work is an integral part of the overall concept, and without it, this submission would not have been realized.

AlexanderFabisch commented 2 months ago

While his direct contribution to the source code may not be extensive, his work is an integral part of the overall concept, and without it, this submission would not have been realized.

OK, thanks for clarification.

AlexanderFabisch commented 2 months ago

I'll summarize the current state of my review here.

Documentation

A statement of need: There is no statement of need in the documentation. Neither in the readme nor in the user guide.
Example usage: I am not entirely sure here. There are some examples of how to use it with a physical picar, but I cannot test it. There are also examples of how to test the digital twin in an automated test pipeline, which I could test. As I understand that is one of the main applications of the digital twin. Is this correct?
Functionality documentation: There is no API documentation. I am not sure if an API documentation is needed, but there should certainly be some additional documentation on how to work with the software apart from "run these docker commands". It could just be a link to a script with some documentation in the comments or some user guide.
Community guidelines: There is only an empty section "Contributing" in the readme.

Software paper

Summary:

The summary could be improved: referring to

This paper presents a digital twin prototype of...

What is a digital twin and why is it useful?

Our goal is to provide researchers and practitioners with an affordable and straightforward example to explore various concepts of digital twins.

What are these concepts of digital twins? In which way can they be explored?

Moreover, this example can be used to explore all the concepts implemented in a previous project named ARCHES (Autonomous Robotic Networks to help Human Societies), which focused on monitoring and operating an underwater network of ocean observation systems

Again, what are these concepts and how are we able to explore these with the picar?

One of the outcomes of this project was the ARCHES Digital Twin Framework

Can you briefly describe what the ARCHES Digital Twin Framework does and why it is needed?

A statement of need:

Digital twins are becoming increasingly relevant...

Why are they becoming more relevant? Certainly they are useful in a way, but it is not clear to me.

Industrial Internet of Things and Industry 4.0

I think these terms need references.

Quality of writing: I think the structure could be improved. Here are two suggestions.
- As I pointed out before it would be useful to point out which are the digital twin concepts from the ARCHES framework that should be demonstrated by this software and then point out how this is achieved in the following sections.
- The description of the Picar, CAD model, and Digital Twin could be one section. If the automated testing pipeline is one of the concepts to be demonstrated in the paper, then I would put it in another section with all the other concepts that the software is supposed to demonstrate.

danielskatz commented 2 months ago

Hi All - it looks like things are moving along on this, which is good.

@AlexanderBarbie - are you working on the comments above (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/7179#issuecomment-2343629103)?

danielskatz commented 1 month ago

@AlexanderBarbie - Can you update us on where things are? (I know there are lots of issues, but perhaps you can summarize this here?)

AlexanderBarbie commented 1 month ago

@AlexanderBarbie - Can you update us on where things are? (I know there are lots of issues, but perhaps you can summarize this here?)

I'm sorry, I did not see your last comment.

I opened two issues to work on the comments of @AlexanderFabisch.

The first one to revise the paper, which I did today. In short: I tried to be more specific and what the PiCar-X can be used for. Since there is already a publication with regards to the formalization of the used digital twin concept and also a preprint which describes in more detail how the different concepts (digital mode, shadow, twin, etc.) could be implemented with the PiCar-X, I opened as second Issue.

The second issue was to enhance the documentation. Here I briefly introduced the different concept with small examples and added a view figures. Furthermore I added a description of the key features of the ARCHES Digital Twin Framework, which is used by the PiCar-X to exchange data/commands between physical and digital twin. This issue also affects the issue opened by @mrsonandrade. He found a bug which I (hopefully) solved, but I am waiting whether it is working for him now. I will make a few small changes to the documentation over the weekend, but overall, I think it's pretty much finished, if there are no new comments/suggestions.

danielskatz commented 1 month ago

@editorialbot check references

danielskatz commented 1 month ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1109/access.2024.3406510 is OK
- 10.3390/sym16020221 is OK
- 10.1109/mic.2021.3065245 is OK
- 10.3289/sw_arches_core_1.0.0 is OK
- 10.1109/MS.2018.2801541 is OK
- 10.1080/00423114.2020.1730917 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2408.13866 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.474 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: ACM SIGSOFT Empirical Standards on GitHub
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ARCHES PiCar-X

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

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:

danielskatz commented 1 month ago

👋 @mrsonandrade, @AlexanderFabisch - Can you see how this now seems, and what else, if anything, is needed for the work to be published?

AlexanderFabisch commented 1 month ago

I checked all the points in my list. Everything looks really good from my perspective. The documentation is much more detailed and useful now. The paper is easier to read.

AlexanderBarbie commented 1 month ago

@danielskatz I fixed some typos in the paper

danielskatz commented 1 month ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

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:

AlexanderBarbie commented 1 month ago

looks good from my end.

danielskatz commented 1 month ago

If future changes are needed, you can run this command too...

mrsonandrade commented 1 month ago

I’m almost done with all the points on my list. My last point concerns the State of the field, which should be in the paper. Thus, are there other related packages? If yes, please, compare them. If not, I think it is valid to clarify this in the paper.

AlexanderBarbie commented 1 month ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

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:

AlexanderBarbie commented 1 month ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1109/access.2024.3406510 is OK
- 10.3390/sym16020221 is OK
- 10.1109/mic.2021.3065245 is OK
- 10.3289/sw_arches_core_1.0.0 is OK
- 10.1109/MS.2018.2801541 is OK
- 10.1080/00423114.2020.1730917 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2408.13866 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.474 is OK
- 10.1145/3264888.3264892 is OK
- 10.1109/tdsc.2023.3236798 is OK
- 10.1109/tii.2023.3264101 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: ACM SIGSOFT Empirical Standards on GitHub
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ARCHES PiCar-X

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

mrsonandrade commented 1 month ago

@danielskatz - I have checked all required points and all my issues were addressed, thus, from my side, I can recommend publication.

danielskatz commented 1 month ago

thanks @mrsonandrade and @AlexanderFabisch.

@AlexanderBarbie - I'll next proofread the paper and let you know what happens after that.

danielskatz commented 1 month ago

@AlexanderBarbie - I'm suggesting a bunch of small changes in https://github.com/cau-se/ARCHES-PiCar-X/pull/12 - please merge this, or let me know what you disagree with, then we can continue to acceptance and publication

danielskatz commented 1 month ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

danielskatz commented 1 month ago

@AlexanderBarbie - please check this PDF to make sure it looks ok, and assuming so, please

Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here.
Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g., figshare, an institutional repository)
Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) has the correct metadata. This includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it). You may also add the authors' ORCID.
Please list the DOI of the archived version here.

I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

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:

AlexanderBarbie commented 1 month ago

The paper looks fine.

I will upload the repository later this evening.

AlexanderBarbie commented 1 month ago

Sooo... I fixed some bugs and uploaded the released version now. I think it is under review status on zenodo but there was a DOI generated already.

version: v.1.1.1 doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13937454

danielskatz commented 1 month ago

@editorialbot set v.1.1.1 as version

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

Done! version is now v.1.1.1

danielskatz commented 1 month ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.13937454 as archive

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.13937454

danielskatz commented 1 month ago

Thanks @AlexanderBarbie - this looks fine.

danielskatz commented 1 month ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1109/access.2024.3406510 is OK
- 10.3390/sym16020221 is OK
- 10.1109/mic.2021.3065245 is OK
- 10.3289/sw_arches_core_1.0.0 is OK
- 10.1109/MS.2018.2801541 is OK
- 10.1080/00423114.2020.1730917 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2408.13866 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.474 is OK
- 10.1145/3264888.3264892 is OK
- 10.1109/tdsc.2023.3236798 is OK
- 10.1109/tii.2023.3264101 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: ACM SIGSOFT Empirical Standards on GitHub
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ARCHES PiCar-X

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

openjournals / joss-reviews