Paper: PyQtGraph - High Performance Visualization for All Platforms

[ntjess]

👋 Excited to attend SciPy in person this year!

Tagging first author @j9ac9k to get pinged as well for updates

---

If you are creating this PR in order to submit a draft of your paper, see http://procbuild.scipy.org/ for logs generated by the build process.

See the project readme for more information.

Editor: !--editor-->@mepa<!--end-editor--

Reviewers: !--reviewers-list-->@saulshanabrook<!--end-reviewers-list--

Note: Waiting on #827 for code block highlighting

[deniederhut]

@scoobies assign @cbcunc as editor

[scoobies]

Assigned! @cbcunc is now the editor

[deniederhut]

@scoobies add @yashasvimisra2798 to reviewers

[scoobies]

@yashasvimisra2798 added to the reviewers list!

[deniederhut]

@scoobies code of conduct

[scoobies]

Our CoC: https://www.scipy2023.scipy.org/code-of-conduct

[scoobies]

Reports of abusive or harassing behavior may be reported to scipy@enthought.com

[cbcunc]

Editor says paper is complete and builds. Awaiting review.

[cbcunc]

@scoobies remove editor

[scoobies]

Editor removed!

[cbcunc]

@scoobies assign @mepa as editor

[scoobies]

Assigned! @mepa is now the editor

[mepa]

@scoobies add @saulshanabrook to reviewers

[scoobies]

@saulshanabrook added to the reviewers list!

[saulshanabrook]

I am looking forward to reviewing this paper! I will likely get to it early next week.

[mepa]

Hey @yashasvimisra2798 and @saulshanabrook! A friendly reminder that initial reviews are due Friday, June 23rd.

[mepa]

@scoobies remove @yashasvimisra2798 from reviewers

[scoobies]

@yashasvimisra2798 removed from the reviewers list!

[mepa]

@scoobies mark pending comment

[deniederhut]

Hi @ntjess ! Is this paper ready for re-review?

[ntjess]

Hi @deniederhut, I have one more set of changes (updated benchmark plots + acknowledgement), I plan to push shortly after the lightning talks if that's not too late

[ntjess]

I plan to push shortly after the lightning talks if that's not too late

@deniederhut Perhaps stretching the definition of shortly 😅 but authors are happy with the revision as of now. Thanks!

[j9ac9k]

Hi @mepa

I just checked the build server https://procbuild.scipy.org/# and when clicking on view PDF, it was the original submission w/o updates made in this PR. Is that expected or is there an issue?

Thanks!

[saulshanabrook]

@j9ac9k I hit the little rebuild icon on that site and it seemed to rebuild a recent copy!

I just looked through the changes and this looks great! Thank you for adding some more context. Congratulations on the wonderful paper and library.

[j9ac9k]

@j9ac9k I hit the little rebuild icon on that site and it seemed to rebuild a recent copy!

I just looked through the changes and this looks great! Thank you for adding some more context. Congratulations on the wonderful paper and library.

I had thought I tried that, but I can rebuild locally should I need to, as long as you were able to read an up to date copy, I'm good :D Thank you for the kind words and for your time reviewing our paper!

[mepa]

Hi @mepa

I just checked the build server https://procbuild.scipy.org/# and when clicking on view PDF, it was the original submission w/o updates made in this PR. Is that expected or is there an issue?

Thanks!

Hi @j9ac9k, there are two ways to trigger a paper rebuild on the build server:

• By commenting @scoobies build paper here in the PR.
• By clicking the "rebuild icon" next your paper at https://procbuild.scipy.org/#, as @saulshanabrook mentioned above.

Does the current pdf look as expected?

[j9ac9k]

Hi @mepa

I just checked the build server https://procbuild.scipy.org/# and when clicking on view PDF, it was the original submission w/o updates made in this PR. Is that expected or is there an issue?

Thanks!

Hi @j9ac9k, there are two ways to trigger a paper rebuild on the build server:

• By commenting @scoobies build paper here in the PR.

• By clicking the "rebuild icon" next your paper at https://procbuild.scipy.org/#, as @saulshanabrook mentioned above.

Does the current pdf look as expected?

It does! Must have been user error,I apologize for the noise.

[mepa]

@scoobies check references

[scoobies]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.3758/BF03201852 is OK
- 10.1145/3386331 is OK
- 10.1049/ir:20030905 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1109/TIM.2019.2914711 is OK
- 10.1177/2211068214553022 is OK
- 10.3389/fninf.2014.00003 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1043351250 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- DOI:10.1007/978-3-540-33037-0\_2 URL is INVALID
- 10.1088/1742-6596/898/10/112002 is INVALID

[mepa]

Hi @ntjess and @j9ac9k - could you please check and resolve the INVALID DOIs marked by scoobies above? It looks like the first one or two need to have prefixes removed, and the third one should be 10.1088/1742-6596/898/11/112002.

[ntjess]

@mepa sorry for the delay, these should be addressed in this most recent push.

[mepa]

@scoobies check references

[scoobies]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1214/aos/1043351250 is OK
- 10.3758/BF03201852 is OK
- 10.1145/3386331 is OK
- 10.1049/ir:20030905 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1109/TIM.2019.2914711 is OK
- 10.1177/2211068214553022 is OK
- 10.1088/1742-6596/898/11/112002 is OK
- 10.3389/fninf.2014.00003 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- DOI:10.1007/978-3-540-33037-0_2 is INVALID (failed connection)

[mepa]

Hey @ntjess and @j9ac9k, if you could please make the one last little change to remove "DOI: " as suggested above, then we can mark the paper ready for publication.

[ntjess]

My apologies for the delay, it should be updated now. Thanks for the reminder!

[mepa]

@scoobies build paper

[scoobies]

building paper...

[scoobies]

{"data"=>{"info"=>"Build for paper ntjess-moore-pyqtgraph scheduled. Note that builds are only executed if the current build attempt is more than 5 minutes old."}, "status"=>"success"}

[mepa]

@scoobies check references

[scoobies]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1214/aos/1043351250 is OK
- 10.3758/BF03201852 is OK
- 10.1145/3386331 is OK
- 10.1049/ir:20030905 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1109/TIM.2019.2914711 is OK
- 10.1177/2211068214553022 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-540-33037-0_2 is OK
- 10.1088/1742-6596/898/11/112002 is OK
- 10.3389/fninf.2014.00003 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[mepa]

Thanks, @ntjess !

[mepa]

@scoobies mark ready