[REVIEW]: EduCortex: browser-based 3D brain visualization of fMRI meta-analysis maps

[whedon]

Submitting author: @PaulScotti (Paul Scotti)
Repository: https://github.com/PaulScotti/EduCortex
Version: v1.1
Editor: @magsol
Reviewers: @tliu23, @TomDonoghue
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3732375

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/9c6a6a00a0c2d68f1e896de9e59471ea"><img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/9c6a6a00a0c2d68f1e896de9e59471ea/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/9c6a6a00a0c2d68f1e896de9e59471ea/status.svg)](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/9c6a6a00a0c2d68f1e896de9e59471ea)

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) by leaving comments 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

@tliu23 & @TomDonoghue & @arokem, 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/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @magsol know.

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨

Review checklist for @tliu23

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE 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: v1.1
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@PaulScotti) 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 @TomDonoghue

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE 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: v1.1
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@PaulScotti) 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 @arokem

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE 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: v1.1
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@PaulScotti) 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]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @tliu23, @TomDonoghue, @arokem 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:

2. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

[whedon]

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2015.00023 may be missing for title: Pycortex: an interactive surface visualizer for fMRI
- https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(03)00134-7 may be missing for title: The visual word form area: expertise for reading in the fusiform gyrus

INVALID DOIs

- None

[magsol]

Hi @TomDonoghue and @tliu23, wanted to check in on how the review is going and see if there was anything you needed!

[TomDonoghue]

Sorry for being a little slow - had a busy week last week - but should be able to do the review in the next couple days, and don't think I need anything in particular for now! Thanks!

[magsol]

Hi @TomDonoghue and @tliu23, I'd really like to wrap this review up soon. Please let me know if you need anything in the meantime. Thanks!

[tliu23]

Went through the lists and checked the ones.