editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@laurenzbeck@matthewfeickert<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @firefly-cpp, @hoanganhngo610 Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4b6bac90bd1eb54700f8afb9f32caebe"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4b6bac90bd1eb54700f8afb9f32caebe/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4b6bac90bd1eb54700f8afb9f32caebe/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4b6bac90bd1eb54700f8afb9f32caebe)

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

@firefly-cpp & @hoanganhngo610, 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 @matthewfeickert 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 @firefly-cpp

📝 Checklist for @hoanganhngo610

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

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.13 s (384.7 files/s, 719299.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          23            712            808           1605
Jupyter Notebook                 6              0          86320            905
Markdown                        13            243              0            478
TOML                             1             35             12            188
TeX                              1             13              0            170
YAML                             4              4              2             92
JSON                             1              0              0             23
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            49           1007          87142           3461
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    62  Farthofer Laurenz (KAI DSC)
     4  Laurenz Farthofer
     1  Hundgeburth Laurenz (KAI DSC)
     1  Laurenz

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.48550/arXiv.2010.15277 is OK
- 10.1109/TKDE.2018.2876857 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2106.02585 is OK
- 10.3389/frai.2022.829842 is OK
- 10.1109/TSM.2014.2364237 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2403.05175 is OK
- 10.1109/CVPRW53098.2021.00399 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2102.06253 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1903.12261 is OK
- 10.1002/1097-024X(200009)30:11<1203::AID-SPE338>3.0.CO;2-N is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Dee...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: TorchVision: PyTorch’s Computer Vision library
- No DOI given, and none found for title: anytree: Python tree data library

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1194

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (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:

matthewfeickert commented 2 months ago

@firefly-cpp @hoanganhngo610 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. :+1:

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 (and if you leave notes on each item that's even better). There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines. I find it particularly helpful to also use the JOSS review criteria and review checklist docs as supplement/guides to the reviewer checklist @editorialbot will make for you.

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#7206 so that a link is created to this Issue 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 4 weeks. Please let me know if either of you require some more time (that's perfectly okay). We can also use @editorialbot to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

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

firefly-cpp commented 2 months ago

Review checklist for @firefly-cpp

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/Infineon/StreamGen?
[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 (@laurenzbeck) 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?

hoanganhngo610 commented 2 months ago

Review checklist for @hoanganhngo610

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/Infineon/StreamGen?
[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 (@laurenzbeck) 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?

matthewfeickert commented 2 months ago

As all reviewers have their checklist generated now I'll have @editorialbot give us reminders in 3 weeks to follow up on the initial state of the review.

matthewfeickert commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot remind @firefly-cpp in 3 weeks

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Reminder set for @firefly-cpp in 3 weeks

matthewfeickert commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot remind @hoanganhngo610 in 3 weeks

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Reminder set for @hoanganhngo610 in 3 weeks

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

:wave: @firefly-cpp, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

:wave: @hoanganhngo610, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

matthewfeickert commented 1 month ago

@firefly-cpp @hoanganhngo610, can you please give us an update on the status of your reviews? I see that there are some Issues being opened (and closed :+1:) on https://github.com/Infineon/StreamGen/ which is good.

hoanganhngo610 commented 1 month ago

@matthewfeickert I am still on the way of finishing the checklist along with some additional comments, and all should be finished by the end of next week at the latest!

firefly-cpp commented 1 month ago

@matthewfeickert, Thanks for reminding me. I really hope to finish my review by the end of this week.

matthewfeickert commented 1 month ago

(I was offline for a few days, so responding now.)

Thanks @firefly-cpp and @hoanganhngo610. The timelines sound good, but as there might be some back and forth needed in discussions I'll set reminders for 2 weeks from now. :+1:

matthewfeickert commented 1 month ago

@editorialbot remind @hoanganhngo610 in 2 weeks

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

Reminder set for @hoanganhngo610 in 2 weeks

matthewfeickert commented 1 month ago

@editorialbot remind @firefly-cpp in 2 weeks

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

Reminder set for @firefly-cpp in 2 weeks

editorialbot commented 3 weeks ago

:wave: @hoanganhngo610, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

editorialbot commented 3 weeks ago

:wave: @firefly-cpp, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

firefly-cpp commented 2 weeks ago

It looks good to me. Hence, it got the green light from my side. Congratulations, @LaurenzBeck, for your precious work.

hoanganhngo610 commented 2 weeks ago

@matthewfeickert The paper gets a green light from me as well, the current version of the paper is now suitable to be published. Thank you @LaurenzBeck for your patience, for a great work and a nice paper!

matthewfeickert commented 1 week ago

Thanks @firefly-cpp and @hoanganhngo610 for your reviews. :+1:

matthewfeickert 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:

matthewfeickert commented 1 week ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1109/TPAMI.2022.3213473 is OK
- 10.1109/TKDE.2018.2876857 is OK
- 10.3389/frai.2022.829842 is OK
- 10.1109/TSM.2014.2364237 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2403.05175 is OK
- 10.1109/CVPRW53098.2021.00399 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2102.06253 is OK
- 10.1002/1097-024X(200009)30:11<1203::AID-SPE338>3.0.CO;2-N is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: A Procedural World Generation Framework for System...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common C...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Dee...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: TorchVision: PyTorch’s Computer Vision Library
- No DOI given, and none found for title: anytree: Python tree data library

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

matthewfeickert commented 1 week ago

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

Double check authors and affiliations (including ORCIDs)
Make a release of the software with the latest changes from the review and post the version number here. This is the version that will be used in the JOSS paper.
Archive the release on Zenodo/figshare/etc and post the DOI here.
Make sure that the title and author list (including ORCIDs) in the archive match those in the JOSS paper.
Make sure that the license listed for the archive is the same as the software license.

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance

[ ] Read the text of the paper and offer comments/corrections (as either a list or a pull request)
[ ] Check that the archive title, author list, version tag, and the license are correct
[ ] Set archive DOI with @editorialbot set <DOI here> as archive
[ ] Set version with @editorialbot set <version here> as version
[ ] Double check rendering of paper with @editorialbot generate pdf
[ ] Specifically check the references with @editorialbot check references and ask author(s) to update as needed
[ ] Recommend acceptance with @editorialbot recommend-accept

matthewfeickert commented 1 week ago

@LaurenzBeck I'll take a few days this week to go through the editorial checklist and then once I've done that I'll prompt you for any minor revisions to the text and then give you guidance on what next steps to take to get everything ready for publication.

matthewfeickert commented 6 hours ago

@LaurenzBeck I just wanted to update you that I had some work deadlines get accelerated and so haven't finished things on my side yet. I plan to by early next week, but apologies for the delay.

openjournals / joss-reviews

[REVIEW]: StreamGen: a Python framework for generating streams of labeled data #7206

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

Review checklist for @firefly-cpp

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @hoanganhngo610

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance