cyrush
commented
10 years ago Hi Dav, Thanks for your review -- I worked to address the reviews with edits included in Pull Request #25 -Cyrus
Open davclark opened 10 years ago
cyrush
commented
10 years ago Hi Dav, Thanks for your review -- I worked to address the reviews with edits included in Pull Request #25 -Cyrus
Reviewer: Dav Clark Department/Center/Division: D-Lab Institution/University/Company: UC Berkeley Field of interest / expertise: Computational Social Science / Neuroscience Country: USA
Article reviewed: Python's Role in VisIt
GENERAL EVALUATION
Please rate the paper using the following criteria (please use the abbreviation to the right of the description)::
below doesn't meet standards for academic publication meets meets or exceeds the standards for academic publication n/a not applicable
SPECIFIC EVALUATION
For the following questions, please respond with 'yes' or 'no'. If you answer 'no', please provide a brief, one- to two-sentence explanation.
Is the code made publicly available and does the article sufficiently describe how to access it?
Yes
Does the article present the problem in an appropriate context? Specifically, does it:
No, thought it's somewhat obvious. It would be great to have a clearly described explanation of the user models (e.g., Qt UI developer for scientist end-user).
Yes (-ish). Somewhat implicit, could be more explicit.
I don't know. Tools that this is built on are well articulated. There are other tools even at LBNL that take similar approaches (e.g., KBase), but I don't know when these projects were started relevant to this paper being written. These other tools wouldn't be replacements (as they are implemented in different domains), but would be worth referring to.
Yes
Is the content of the paper accessible to a computational scientist with no specific knowledge in the given field?
Yes
Does the paper describe a well-formulated scientific or technical achievement?
Yes, it's clearly an awesome system.
Are the technical and scientific decisions well-motivated and clearly explained?
No, I'd love to have a bit more about the problem domain and what kinds of solutions this system enables.
Are the code examples (if any) sound, clear, and well-written?
Yes. Just the right amount of commenting. Maybe add a little whitespace to break up sections.
Is the paper factually correct?
Yes (I think - haven't run any code, for example)
Is the language and grammar of sufficient quality?
Yes.
Are the conclusions justified?
Yes, but they could be stronger.
Is prior work properly and fully cited?
Yes (but see above on "previous work")
Should any part of the article be shortened or expanded? Please explain.
Per above, more on uesrs of the system, and impacts of solutions.
In your view, is the paper fit for publication in the conference proceedings? Please suggest specific improvements and indicate whether you think the article needs a significant rewrite (rather than a minor revision).
Yes. Fine as is. Could be better.
COMMENTS
The overview.pdf is a bit out of sync with the text, where the CLI is Python. You may as well make the text parallel the graphic. The details are explained later in the paper - this just sets up a period of potential confusion.
The approach using Qt designer UIs is definitely in the "moderately awesome" category. I've seen the basic Qt / Python tech, but I rarely see examples like this that make it seem really compelling. If you ever want to do a presentation at UC Berkeley to the python folks, you're most welcome!