Devicely: A Python package for reading, timeshifting and writing sensor data

[arianesasso]

Submitting Author: Ariane Sasso (@arianesasso) All current maintainers: @arianesasso Package Name: Devicely One-Line Description of Package: A Python package for reading, timeshifting and writing sensor data Repository Link: https://github.com/hpi-dhc/devicely Version submitted: 0.2.5 Editor: @xmnlab Reviewer 1: @willingc Reviewer 2: @agricolab
Archive: JOSS DOI: Version accepted: v1.1.1 Date accepted (month/day/year): 08/19/2021

---

Description

Wearable devices can track a multitude of parameters such as heart rate, body temperature, blood oxygen saturation, acceleration, blood glucose and much more [Kamisalic2018]. Moreover, they are becoming increasingly popular with a steeping increase in market presence in 2020 alone [IDC2020]. Applications for wearable devices varies from tracking cardiovascular risks [Bayoumy2021] to identifying COVID-19 onset [Mishra2020]. Therefore, there is a great need for scientists to easily go through data acquired from different wearables. In order to solve this problem and empower scientists working with biosignals, we developed the devicely package. It represents the data in a science-friendly format and lets scientists focus on what they want: the analysis of biosignals.

Scope

• Please indicate which category or categories this package falls under:
  • [ ] Data retrieval
  • [ ] Data extraction
  • [x] Data munging
  • [ ] Data deposition
  • [ ] Reproducibility
  • [ ] Geospatial
  • [ ] Education
  • [ ] Data visualization*

* Please fill out a pre-submission inquiry before submitting a data visualization package. For more info, see notes on categories of our guidebook.

• Explain how the and why the package falls under these categories (briefly, 1-2 sentences): We developed this package for scientists to easily go through data acquired from different wearables.

• Who is the target audience and what are scientific applications of this package?
  Scientists working with wearable devices.

• Are there other Python packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ? Not to our knowledge.

• If you made a pre-submission enquiry, please paste the link to the corresponding issue, forum post, or other discussion, or @tag the editor you contacted:

Technical checks

For details about the pyOpenSci packaging requirements, see our packaging guide. Confirm each of the following by checking the box. This package:

• [x] does not violate the Terms of Service of any service it interacts with.
• [x] has an OSI approved license.
• [x] contains a README with instructions for installing the development version.
• [x] includes documentation with examples for all functions.
• [x] contains a vignette with examples of its essential functions and uses.
• [x] has a test suite.
• [x] has continuous integration, such as Travis CI, AppVeyor, CircleCI, and/or others.

Publication options

• [x] Do you wish to automatically submit to the Journal of Open Source Software? If so:

JOSS Checks

- [x] The package has an **obvious research application** according to JOSS's definition in their [submission requirements][JossSubmissionRequirements]. Be aware that completing the pyOpenSci review process **does not** guarantee acceptance to JOSS. Be sure to read their submission requirements (linked above) if you are interested in submitting to JOSS. - [x] The package is not a "minor utility" as defined by JOSS's [submission requirements][JossSubmissionRequirements]: "Minor ‘utility’ packages, including ‘thin’ API clients, are not acceptable." pyOpenSci welcomes these packages under "Data Retrieval", but JOSS has slightly different criteria. - [x] The package contains a `paper.md` matching [JOSS's requirements][JossPaperRequirements] with a high-level description in the package root or in `inst/`. - [x] The package is deposited in a long-term repository with the DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4661545 *Note: Do not submit your package separately to JOSS*

Are you OK with Reviewers Submitting Issues and/or pull requests to your Repo Directly?

This option will allow reviewers to open smaller issues that can then be linked to PR's rather than submitting a more dense text based review. It will also allow you to demonstrate addressing the issue via PR links.

• [x] Yes I am OK with reviewers submitting requested changes as issues to my repo. Reviewers will then link to the issues in their submitted review.

Code of conduct

• [x] I agree to abide by pyOpenSci's Code of Conduct during the review process and in maintaining my package should it be accepted.

P.S. *Have feedback/comments about our review process? Leave a comment here

Editor and Review Templates

Editor and review templates can be found here

[arianesasso]

@xmnlab thanks for checking :). Initially I asked out of curiosity. I guess that one benefit would be for the users looking for particular packages. But I think the listing of the packages in the website already solves that problem :). I could also see a case for researchers producing packages out of an organization and that would like to move them to PyOpenSci. In my case, since I am already part of an organization I guess it wouldn’t make much sense. Thank you 😊!

[xmnlab]

@arianesasso thank you so much for the detailed information. If we decided to move this option forward I will let you know. thanks!

[lwasser]

hi there @arianesasso !! i am checkin in on this review. Did you end up moving forward with submitting to JOSS to get your cross-ref validated DOI? If you decided against it I am going to close this issue and remove the JOSS tag. If you did - can you kindly send us a link to the JOSS issue? Many thanks.

In the future we do plan to discuss the option of moving repos over to the pyopensci organization in the same way that ropensci does so that input is noted. So far most of our submissions have been happy with remaining in their own organizations but that doesn't mean that all will want to be treated that way.

[arianesasso]

Hi @lwasser, we did publish it on JOSS :). Here is the link: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03679

Thanks for letting us know! For now, we are also ok with having it in our organization.

Cheers!

[lwasser]

oh @arianesasso wonderful. we'd like to reference the issue in JOSS that you published. can you kindly add the link here and then I will close this with the tag "joss approved"? Thank you so much for following up!! We like to keep track of the joss/pyos partnership reviews!!

[arianesasso]

Thank you for following up :).

This is the link: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03679

Does it work for you?

[lwasser]

Thank you @arianesasso i was looking for this guy: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/3679

It looks like you went through a second review :) that's fine but you didn't need to once accepted here! but that's wonderful that you put in that extra effort!!! Thank you so much I am going to close this issue now!

[arianesasso]

Ah, I see, sorry 🙈 .

Yes, I thought I had to do both. But in the end, I think they were all valuable 😄 .

Thank you again for all your support!

[lwasser]

hey 👋 @arianesasso @willingc @NickleDave @xmnlab @agricolab ! I hope that you are all well. I am reaching out here to all reviewers and maintainers about pyOpenSci now that i am working full time on the project (read more here). We have a survey that we'd like for you to fill out so we can:

🔗 HERE IS THE SURVEY LINK 🔗

1. invite you to our slack channel to participate in our community (if you wish to join - no worries if that is not how you prefer to communicate / participate).
2. Collect information from you about how we can improve our review process and also better serve maintainers. The survey should take about 10 minutes to complete depending upon how much you decide to write. This information will help us greatly as we make decisions about how pyOpenSci grows and serves the community. Thank you so much in advance for filling it out.

NOTE: this is different from the form designed for reviewers to sign up to review. IMPORTANT: If there are other maintainers for this project, please ping them here and ask them to fill out the survey as well. It is important that we ensure packages are supported long term or sunsetted with sufficient communication to users. Thus we will check in with maintainers annually about maintenance.

Thank you in advance for doing this and supporting pyOpenSci.

[lwasser]

Good. morning @willingc @agricolab I know that everyone is super busy BUT if you have just 5-10 minutes to fill our our onboarding / feedback survey for this review i'd greatly appreciate it!! Many thanks in advance for your time. it really helps our organization!
🔗 HERE IS THE SURVEY LINK 🔗