Skip to content
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]: mLEARn: An Implementation of Multi-layer Perceptron in C++ #59

Open
whedon opened this issue Jun 24, 2019 · 5 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator

commented Jun 24, 2019

Submitting author: @kalu-o (Kalu U. Ogbureke)
Repository: https://github.com/kalu-o/mLEARn
Version: v1.0.1
Editor: @willingc
Reviewer: @dsblank, @trallard
Archive: Pending

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/60d6aba965ea6bdc929c9b7b1f46b44b"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/60d6aba965ea6bdc929c9b7b1f46b44b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/60d6aba965ea6bdc929c9b7b1f46b44b/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/60d6aba965ea6bdc929c9b7b1f46b44b)

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

@dsblank & @trallard, 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 @willingc know.

Review checklist for @dsblank

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 (@kalu-o) 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 @trallard

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 (@kalu-o) 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.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Jun 24, 2019

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @dsblank, @trallard it looks like you're currently assigned to review 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.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Jun 24, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Jun 24, 2019

@labarba

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 24, 2019

👋 @dsblank, @trallard — Thank you for agreeing to review this submission to JOSE. This is where it happens: you both have a checklist at the top of this issue to help you along. Feel free to post questions here and open issues on the submission repository, if needed. The version item is something we can check off in the end, as we will ask the authors to do a release after any revisions. Statement of need should be a section in the paper (the checklist has it also in the Documentation, but that's optional).

Please tick off your Conflict of Interest and Code of Conduct items ASAP, so we all see the review has started. Thanks!

@labarba

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 24, 2019

Our Reviewer guidelines cover briefly our expectations.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.