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]: A News Verification Browser for the Detection of Clickbait, Satire, and Falsified News #1208

Closed
whedon opened this Issue Jan 27, 2019 · 68 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
7 participants
@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator

whedon commented Jan 27, 2019

Submitting author: @VictoriaRubin (Victoria Rubin)
Repository: https://github.com/litrl/litrl_code
Version: v0.14.0.0
Editor: @arfon
Reviewer: @lrasmus, @CBenghi
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.2588566

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/7151f505800a4de5ee91ab5aadabf4f7"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/7151f505800a4de5ee91ab5aadabf4f7/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/7151f505800a4de5ee91ab5aadabf4f7/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/7151f505800a4de5ee91ab5aadabf4f7)

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

@lrasmus & @CBenghi, 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.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @danielskatz know.

Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks

Review checklist for @lrasmus

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: v0.14.0.0
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@VictoriaRubin) made major 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?
  • 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 what problems the software is designed to solve 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 (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
  • Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
  • Automated 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 what problems the software is designed to solve 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 @CBenghi

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: v0.14.0.0
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@VictoriaRubin) made major 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?
  • 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 what problems the software is designed to solve 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 (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
  • Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
  • Automated 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 what problems the software is designed to solve 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

whedon commented Jan 27, 2019

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @lrasmus, 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/joss-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/joss-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

whedon commented Jan 27, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Jan 27, 2019

@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

danielskatz commented Jan 27, 2019

👋 @lrasmus, @CBenghi - thanks for agreeing to review this. Please see the comments above this, and work your way through your review checklist, letting us all know what you find to be missing or incorrect in the submission. And please ping me if you have any problems.

@brogly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

brogly commented Jan 28, 2019

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Jan 28, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Jan 28, 2019

@brogly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

brogly commented Jan 28, 2019

@lrasmus @CBenghi - I have made some revisions to the paper to further clarify that accuracy levels may vary in real-world use. Also, you can find that some of the review items are addressed on the wiki. If I should move these into the README, please let me know. Thanks!

@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

danielskatz commented Jan 30, 2019

👋 @lrasmus @CBenghi - we look forward to hearing from you again based on the recent changes.

@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

danielskatz commented Feb 4, 2019

👋 @lrasmus @CBenghi - Can I get an update from you on this review?

@brogly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

brogly commented Feb 4, 2019

@lrasmus @CBenghi documentation has been updated to clarify the compile process; let me know if there are any concerns or things arent working

@lrasmus

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

lrasmus commented Feb 5, 2019

👋 @lrasmus @CBenghi - Can I get an update from you on this review?

@danielskatz I have started with the basic checklist items, sorry it was a little slow start on my end. I am planning to complete by the end of this week. Thank you @brogly for updates in manuscript and instructions.

@lrasmus

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

lrasmus commented Feb 5, 2019

@danielskatz - clarification question. The authors have appropriately tagged and marked for release v0.12.0.0 of the software. Should we review just what is in the repository as of that tag, or include recent commits? Not trying to be a stickler, just wondering if recommended practice is for authors to re-tag software updates that we then review, or if software gets versioned and tagged following completion of JOSS review. Thanks!

@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

danielskatz commented Feb 5, 2019

You should review changes, particularly those made in response to review issues.

software gets versioned and tagged following completion of JOSS review

yes, this is what happens

@brogly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

brogly commented Feb 9, 2019

@lrasmus @CBenghi - you may need to clone the repository again. Also, the installer for 0.12.0.0 has been replaced - the replacement is functionally identical and was built off the same tag for 0.12.0.0, although I'm not sure if a minor change like that would affect review or not. Thanks!

@brogly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

brogly commented Feb 11, 2019

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Feb 11, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Feb 11, 2019

@brogly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

brogly commented Feb 11, 2019

@lrasmus @CBenghi minor change to PDF references to clarify that Asubiaro & Rubin and Brogly & Rubin are both unpublished articles

@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

danielskatz commented Feb 15, 2019

👋 @lrasmus & @CBenghi - can I get an update from you on where you are in your reviews, in response to @brogly's changes?

@lrasmus

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

lrasmus commented Feb 15, 2019

@danielskatz - making progress. @CBenghi is rocking it reporting technical issues/considerations (https://github.com/litrl/litrl_code/issues). I am finding some documentation gaps that I am opening issues for in the repo as well.

@brogly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

brogly commented Feb 16, 2019

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Feb 16, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Feb 16, 2019

@brogly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

brogly commented Feb 16, 2019

@CBenghi @lrasmus - Added a newly assigned DOI for one of the references

@brogly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

brogly commented Feb 21, 2019

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Feb 21, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

brogly commented Mar 5, 2019

@danielskatz - OK & Thanks! I will leave the unpublished documents then.

@CBenghi - I understand the new issue and will start work on that shortly.

@CBenghi

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

CBenghi commented Mar 9, 2019

Dear @arfon,

I'm glad to let you know that @brogly has addressed all the issues.
I agree with @lrasmus that the repository passes all requirements for the review and I've flagged them all above.

Well done @brogly, I'm tempted to start using this myself in normal web browsing :-)

Best,
Claudio

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

arfon commented Mar 9, 2019

I agree with @lrasmus that the repository passes all requirements for the review and I've flagged them all above.

Great!

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

arfon commented Mar 9, 2019

@whedon check references

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Mar 9, 2019

Attempting to check references...
@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

arfon commented Mar 9, 2019

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Mar 9, 2019


OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.2016628 is OK
- 10.1002/pra2.2018.14505501100 is OK
- 10.1002/pra2.2015.145052010081 is OK
- 10.1145/2823465.2823467 is OK
- 10.1002/pra2.2015.145052010083 is OK
- 10.18653/v1/W16-0802 is OK
- 10.5210/fm.v17i3.3933 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2018.14505501100 may be missing for title: Falsified News Detection Methodology
- https://doi.org/10.1145/2823465.2823467 may be missing for title: Detecting Clickbait: Here’s how to Do it
- https://doi.org/10.1353/ils.0.0000 may be missing for title: News Verification Suite: Towards System Design to Supplement Reporters’ and Editors’ Judgements

INVALID DOIs

- None

@openjournals openjournals deleted a comment from whedon Mar 9, 2019

@openjournals openjournals deleted a comment from whedon Mar 9, 2019

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

arfon commented Mar 9, 2019

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Mar 9, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Mar 9, 2019

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

arfon commented Mar 9, 2019

@VictoriaRubin - At this point could you make an archive of the reviewed software in Zenodo/figshare/other service and update this thread with the DOI of the archive? I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

@VictoriaRubin

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

VictoriaRubin commented Mar 9, 2019

@arfon - The DOI is 10.5281/zenodo.2588566. @danielskatz + @CBenghi @lrasmus - Thank you very much for your review!

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

arfon commented Mar 9, 2019

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.2588566 as archive

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Mar 9, 2019

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.2588566 is the archive.

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

arfon commented Mar 9, 2019

@whedon accept

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Mar 9, 2019

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Mar 9, 2019

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#541

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#541, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Mar 9, 2019


OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.2016628 is OK
- 10.1002/pra2.2018.14505501100 is OK
- 10.1002/pra2.2015.145052010081 is OK
- 10.1145/2823465.2823467 is OK
- 10.1002/pra2.2015.145052010083 is OK
- 10.18653/v1/W16-0802 is OK
- 10.5210/fm.v17i3.3933 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2018.14505501100 may be missing for title: Falsified News Detection Methodology
- https://doi.org/10.1145/2823465.2823467 may be missing for title: Detecting Clickbait: Here’s how to Do it
- https://doi.org/10.1353/ils.0.0000 may be missing for title: News Verification Suite: Towards System Design to Supplement Reporters’ and Editors’ Judgements

INVALID DOIs

- None
@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

arfon commented Mar 9, 2019

@whedon accept deposit=true

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Mar 9, 2019

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

@whedon whedon added the accepted label Mar 9, 2019

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Mar 9, 2019

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

  1. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#542
  2. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01208
  3. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
  4. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

arfon commented Mar 9, 2019

@lrasmus, @CBenghi - many thanks for your reviews here and to @danielskatz for editing this submission

@VictoriaRubin - your paper is now accepted into JOSS ⚡️🚀💥

@arfon arfon closed this Mar 9, 2019

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Mar 9, 2019

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01208/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01208)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01208">
  <img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01208/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01208/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01208

This is how it will look in your documentation:

DOI

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

danielskatz commented Mar 10, 2019

Thanks everyone, I’m glad to see this complete!

@brogly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

brogly commented Mar 10, 2019

Thanks everyone!!!

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.