New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[REVIEW]: Org-Coursepack #34

Open
whedon opened this Issue Oct 23, 2018 · 9 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
6 participants
@whedon
Collaborator

whedon commented Oct 23, 2018

Submitting author: @joonro (Joon Ro)
Repository: https://github.com/joonro/Org-Coursepack
Version: v1.0.1
Editor: @csev
Reviewer: @pschloss, @gregcaporaso
Archive: Pending

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/b79c2f06fe0c85c5389086bec9b8287c"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/b79c2f06fe0c85c5389086bec9b8287c/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/b79c2f06fe0c85c5389086bec9b8287c/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/b79c2f06fe0c85c5389086bec9b8287c)

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

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

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

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

Review checklist for @pschloss

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
  • License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
  • Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.1)?
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@joonro) made substantial contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

  • Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation? (and documentation is sufficient?)
  • Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
  • 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

  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
  • Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies? (Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.)
  • Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software?
  • Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
  • Tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
  • 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

  • Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
  • References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @gregcaporaso

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
  • License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
  • Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.1)?
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@joonro) made substantial contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

  • Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation? (and documentation is sufficient?)
  • Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
  • 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

  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
  • Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies? (Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.)
  • Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software?
  • Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
  • Tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
  • 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

  • Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
  • References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

whedon commented Oct 23, 2018

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @pschloss, it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper 🎉.

⭐️ Important ⭐️

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/jose-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:

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

watching

  1. 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

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

whedon commented Oct 23, 2018

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

whedon commented Oct 23, 2018

@labarba

This comment has been minimized.

Member

labarba commented Oct 23, 2018

@pschloss, @gregcaporaso — Thank you for agreeing to review this submission for JOSE. We're so grateful for your volunteer efforts! This is where the action happens. You will work through the checklist above, and ask questions here as needed. You may also open issues in the submission's repository, and post a link here.

@pschloss

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

pschloss commented Oct 29, 2018

The manuscript describes a tool to be used in the Org mode of emacs to generate a course bundle with a syllabus, handouts, and slides. I like the idea of having a single styling that can be applied across all layers of a course packet. The authors point out that this is often done using various tools such as MS Word and PowerPoint. Another advantage is the ability to use text-based files that could be maintained under version control to track the changes to a course's content over time and foster collaboration.

To be transparent, I've never been successful in using emacs. Whether the package works as described needs to be reviewed by someone else. But, I found it difficult to navigate the documentation and templates. I could see something like this being a motivation to learn emacs and engage in this type of material in the future. Unfortunately, I find accessing the package at this level impenetrable. The installation notes state, "Clone the repo or download the ZIP archive". Again, I don't know much about emacs, but that seems pretty minimalist. Are there commands within emacs that would need to be run to load the package? Where in a directory structure in relation to the templates do I need to be to use the package? How would I build the examples? Descriptions of these steps should probably be in the README. The authors are clear that the package is for people with "basic knowledge of Org mode" and so the package is not for me. I worry that the community of people with this level of knowledge is pretty limited.

If possible, I would encourage the authors to separate the templates from the organization in their repo organization. Although the material is elsewhere, I think the README could use a more expansive description of how the repository is organized.

Example Usage / Functionality documentation. Could the authors perhaps create a video or set of annotated screenshots that shows how to generate one of the example course packets?

Community guidelines. I would encourage the authors to create a CONTRIBUTION.md file in their repository that indicates how the community can engage with the developers to help with further development.

@pschloss

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

pschloss commented Oct 29, 2018

apologies to @gregcaporaso if i accidentally checked/unchecked anything from your checklist!

@gregcaporaso

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

gregcaporaso commented Oct 30, 2018

The authors present Org-Coursepack, a set of tools for deriving lecture materials (slides, handouts, syllabus, exams) using emacs/Org. I'm probably not an ideal reviewer for this work as I've never used Org, and I rarely use emacs. If the other review (@pschloss) is also not an emacs/Org user, than I think it would make sense to consider adding a third reviewer who is more familar with these tools (I avoided reading @pschloss's review while preparing mine).

I have reviewed the example lecture materials and project documentation, and the resulting course materials do seem very nicely organized. I can see how Org-Coursepack use by an instructor would be beneficial to a class.

Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.1)

The most recent release version on GitHub is 1.1.0 - that doesn't match this version number, but does match a version number.

I created a few specific issues that I think would be important to address before publication:

@gregcaporaso

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

gregcaporaso commented Oct 30, 2018

apologies to @gregcaporaso if i accidentally checked/unchecked anything from your checklist!

No worries! And apologies if I checked/unchecked any of yours (I got lost in that comment block a couple of times and worried that I may have messed with your list).

@joonro

This comment has been minimized.

joonro commented Oct 30, 2018

@pschloss and @gregcaporaso, thank you so much for your valuable comments. We will work to address them and report back.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment