[REVIEW]: Annotate-Lab: Simplifying Image Annotation

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@sumn2u@boisgera<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @jpcbertoldo, @PetervanLunteren Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7d9f9acf52f04d124399f26b37e6ab1a"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7d9f9acf52f04d124399f26b37e6ab1a/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7d9f9acf52f04d124399f26b37e6ab1a/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7d9f9acf52f04d124399f26b37e6ab1a)

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

@jpcbertoldo & @PetervanLunteren, 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 @boisgera 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 @PetervanLunteren

📝 Checklist for @jpcbertoldo

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

- 10.1145/3343031.3350535 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.11543564 is OK
- 10.1109/I2C2.2017.8321819 is OK
- 10.1007/s11042-022-12100-1 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2401.01454 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2304.02643 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- None

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.14 s (1067.4 files/s, 242558.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JSON                             3              0              0          18828
JSX                             45            360             64           6152
JavaScript                      76            512            189           5362
Python                           8            303            138           1605
Markdown                         7            204              0            745
YAML                             4             14              4             93
TeX                              1              7              0             81
HTML                             1              3             22             21
TOML                             1              0              0             20
Dockerfile                       2             14              0             18
CSS                              1              0              0              6
CSV                              4              0              0              4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           153           1417            417          32935
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   293  sumn2u
   192  seveibar
    71  Severin Ibarluzea
    47  semantic-release-bot
    13  Oleh Yasenytsky
    11  Suman Kunwar
    10  snyk-bot
     7  Henry LIANG
     7  Tamay Eser Uysal
     6  Emiliano Castellano
     5  DQ4443
     5  sreevardhanreddi
     3  Mews
     3  Mykyta Holubakha
     3  OmG2011
     3  dependabot[bot]
     2  Josep de Cid
     2  Katsuhisa Yuasa
     2  Mohammed Eldadah
     2  linyers
     1  HoangHN
     1  Hummer12007
     1  Joey Figaro
     1  Puskuruk
     1  Shahidul Islam Majumder
     1  ThibautGeriz
     1  beru
     1  harith-hacky03

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1018

✅ 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:

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1145/3343031.3350535 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.11543564 is OK
- 10.1109/I2C2.2017.8321819 is OK
- 10.1007/s11042-022-12100-1 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2401.01454 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2304.02643 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- None

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

PetervanLunteren commented 1 month ago

Review checklist for @PetervanLunteren

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/sumn2u/annotate-lab?
[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 (@sumn2u) 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?

PetervanLunteren commented 1 month ago

Hi @sumn2u,

I’ve taken a close look at your tool, and I want to commend you on the impressive work and extensive documentation. I have gone through the reviewer’s checklist and the Review criteria, and I noticed a few minor points that I would appreciate some clarification on:

Annotation project options: At the start of an annotation project, users can choose between “Image classification” and “Image segmentation.” I’d like to point out that “Image classification” typically refers to assigning a single label to an entire image, while the functionality of placing bounding boxes, circles, or polygons is more accurately described as “Object detection.” Would it be possible to revise this terminology to better reflect this distinction?
User experience for annotating multiple images: In scenarios where users want to annotate multiple images, particularly in bulk (potentially thousands), implementing shortcut keys could significantly enhance the user experience. During my testing, I found that the only way to move to the next image was by clicking on it in the list. Did I overlook any existing shortcuts, or is there a plan to introduce this feature in future updates?
Comparison with similar tools: In the manuscript, you mention other similar software tools such as Label Studio, VGG, COCO Annotator, Super Annotate, and CVAT. However, I found it challenging to pinpoint the main differences between your tool and these others. Is the primary distinguishing factor that your tool is open-source and community-driven? It might be helpful to elaborate on this in the manuscript to highlight what sets your tool apart.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your responses!

sumn2u commented 1 month ago

Hi @PetervanLunteren , Thank you for your review and for your kind words! I truly appreciate your thoughtful feedback on both the tool and its documentation. Here's answer to your questions:

Annotation project options: At the start of an annotation project, users can choose between “Image classification” and “Image segmentation.” I’d like to point out that “Image classification” typically refers to assigning a single label to an entire image, while the functionality of placing bounding boxes, circles, or polygons is more accurately described as “Object detection.” Would it be possible to revise this terminology to better reflect this distinction?

It makes sense to update the terminology, as it better conveys the intended functionality. I’ve made the necessary changes and updated the repository, documentation, and manuscript accordingly. It looks like this now.

User experience for annotating multiple images: In scenarios where users want to annotate multiple images, particularly in bulk (potentially thousands), implementing shortcut keys could significantly enhance the user experience. During my testing, I found that the only way to move to the next image was by clicking on it in the list. Did I overlook any existing shortcuts, or is there a plan to introduce this feature in future updates?

We don’t have this feature yet, but we plan to add it in the near future.

Comparison with similar tools: In the manuscript, you mention other similar software tools such as Label Studio, VGG, COCO Annotator, Super Annotate, and CVAT. However, I found it challenging to pinpoint the main differences between your tool and these others. Is the primary distinguishing factor that your tool is open-source and community-driven? It might be helpful to elaborate on this in the manuscript to highlight what sets your tool apart.

Yes, our tool is indeed open-source and community-driven. Moreover, our client-server architecture enhances flexibility and scalability, which distinguishes us from other annotation tools. I have added this section in our manuscript to provide a clearer comparison and to emphasize the unique features of our tool.

Please let me know if anything is unclear.

sumn2u 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:

PetervanLunteren commented 1 month ago

@sumn2u Thank you for the quick response! In my opinion, with the revisions and answers, the submission meets the acceptance criteria.

boisgera commented 3 weeks ago

Thanks a lot for your great review @PetervanLunteren! :pray:

And thank you @sumn2u for your reactivity :+1:

@jpcbertoldo should be able to start his own review pretty soon.

sumn2u commented 1 week ago

Hi @boisgera, Do you happen to know when the next review will begin? I was under the impression that the entire review process would start in about seven weeks.

jpcbertoldo commented 1 week ago

Hi @boisgera, Do you happen to know when the next review will begin? I was under the impression that the entire review process would start in about seven weeks.

Hi @sumn2u, I apologize for delaying this, I had some other things to prioritize, but I will be able to deal with this in a few days. So sorry for taking long @boisgera !

sumn2u commented 3 days ago

Hi @jpcbertoldo, when you have a moment, would you be able to review this? Thanks!

jpcbertoldo commented 2 days ago

Hi @jpcbertoldo, when you have a moment, would you be able to review this? Thanks!

doing it tomorrow!

jpcbertoldo commented 1 day ago

Review checklist for @jpcbertoldo

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/sumn2u/annotate-lab?
[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 (@sumn2u) 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?

sumn2u commented 1 day ago

Thank you, @jpcbertoldo, for the thorough review. @boisgera, I believe we're now ready to move on to the next step.

openjournals / joss-reviews