[REVIEW]: SeqPeelSort - A spike sorting algorithm for single sensillum recordings

whedon commented 6 years ago

Submitting author: @grg2rsr (Georg Raiser) Repository: https://github.com/grg2rsr/SeqPeelSort Version: v1.0 Editor: @arokem Reviewer: @nirum Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1420108

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/9ff9938943f95db0800d00a75ac9ffe6"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/9ff9938943f95db0800d00a75ac9ffe6/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/9ff9938943f95db0800d00a75ac9ffe6/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/9ff9938943f95db0800d00a75ac9ffe6)

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) 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

@nirum, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @arokem know.

Review checklist for @nirum

Conflict of interest

[x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

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 repository url?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0)?
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@grg2rsr) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

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 function 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] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[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] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

whedon commented 6 years ago

Hello human, I'm @whedon. I'm here to help you with some common editorial tasks. @nirum it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper :tada:.

:star: Important :star:

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

watching

You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

whedon commented 6 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 6 years ago

--> Check article proof :page_facing_up: <--

nirum commented 6 years ago

Added a couple of issues to the project repo. In general, looks great! I was able to install the code and run the example easily.

arokem commented 6 years ago

@grg2rsr : have you had a chance to address the reviewer's concerns?

nirum commented 6 years ago

@grg2rsr has addressed all of my comments!

arokem commented 6 years ago

Hi @nirum : just to confirm -- does this mean that the paper is ready to be accepted from your point of view?

@grg2rsr : one request from my end: could you please add the DOI for the references in the paper?

grg2rsr commented 6 years ago

DOIs are added

nirum commented 6 years ago

Yes, paper is ready to accept from my end!

On Sep 10, 2018, at 5:44 AM, Georg Raiser notifications@github.com wrote:

DOIs are added

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

arokem commented 6 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 6 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 6 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

arokem commented 6 years ago

Great! @grg2rsr : everything looks good. Could you please create an archive of the software as it is now (e.g., using https://zenodo.org/) and post the DOI here?

grg2rsr commented 6 years ago

@whedon generate pdf (grammar fix found in proof)

whedon commented 6 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 6 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

grg2rsr commented 6 years ago

the error is still in the pdf, but not in the README as displayed in github. Attempting to generate pdf after some time delay in case something wasn't updated after first recompilation @whedon generate pdf

grg2rsr commented 6 years ago

:( I have no power over whedon It is not a biggie anyways. I wait until the end of the day and then proceed at registering a DOI at Zenodo ... edit: OK whatever. Here it is

arokem commented 5 years ago

@arfon: I believe this paper is ready to go!

arokem commented 5 years ago

@whedon set https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1420108 as archive

whedon commented 5 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.1420108 is the archive.

arfon commented 5 years ago

@nirum many thanks for your review here and to @arokem for editing this submission ✨

@grg2rsr - your paper is now accepted into JOSS and your DOI is https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00792 :zap: 🚀:boom:

whedon commented 5 years ago

:tada::tada::tada: Congratulations on your paper acceptance! :tada::tada::tada:

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00792/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00792)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00792">
  <img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00792/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00792/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00792

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: http://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/Mjk3Nzk=

grg2rsr commented 5 years ago

Nice! Many thanks you all for this smooth submission and review process!

openjournals / joss-reviews