-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 36
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]: TextWiller: collection of text mining utilities, specially devoted to the Italian language #1256
Comments
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @timClicks 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:
For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
|
|
Copying from the pre-review thread from @timClicks : Hi @scan2001, thanks for the paper submission. I'm not officially an assigned reviewer, but I've taken a quick look at the paper. Let me start by saying that it's excellent to see NLP contributions to non-English languages. Prior art However, there are many text mining packages available, even sticking within the R community. I wonder if you should cite some of the other open source NLP packages and explain that they do not offer Italian stemming/normalisation? From the review guidelines:
Authorship I believe that it's up to your team to decide on authorship, but the three authors don't match the authors listed in the DESCRIPTION file or the TextWiller-package.R file. Also, from the contribution list, it's unclear what level of contribution that your first author has made? (I assume that some of the commit history has been lost) Here is the relevant guidance from the review guidelines:
Documentation TextWiller's API documentation is in Italian. However, it looks comprehensive. (Deferring to @mgymrek for an opinion about whether this is allowed) Tests TextWiller doesn't appear to have a comprehensive test suite. |
@timClicks thanks for starting the review! would you also be able to fill out the checklist here? |
Hi @timClicks I just wanted to check in on this |
@mgymrek Apologies on the delay. Will make my way through installation this week. |
hi @timClicks I just wanted to ping you about the review. I see you've started the checklist. |
👋 @timClicks — can you update us on your status with this review? |
@timClicks can you give us an update if you will be able to complete this review? |
👋 @timClicks - we haven't heard from you in about 10 weeks now - are you still planning to perform this review? |
Note twitter discussion thread: https://twitter.com/LorenaABarba/status/1131222830794903552 |
Statement of need from paper.md, l 32
|
Installation was very easy, |
Functionality documentation provided by |
References do not include any archival resources, so I have marked this as a pass. |
@whedon commands |
Here are some things you can ask me to do:
|
@mgymrek I believe that there are no community guidelines in the repository or any tests, either automated or manual. I believe that the paper and the project meet the other criteria. |
Thanks @timClicks. @scan2001. I agree with these comments. Including tests and community guidelines is a JOSS requirement. Are you able to add tests for TextWiller functionality, and also to expand the README with guidelines for community members to contribute or get support? You may look at other JOSS submissions for examples. e.g. https://github.com/ropensci/citesdb |
Thanks @mgymrek and @timClicks. |
Hi @scan2001, just wanted to check on your progress. Can you give us an expected date when you think you'll be able to complete that work? |
Hi @kyleniemeyer, sorry for the delay. We have already included the guidelines for community members and we will run the tests probably next week, with maximum expected date no later than July 14th. |
I don't recognize this description of time '2.5' 'weeks'. |
@whedon generate pdf |
|
@whedon generate pdf |
|
Thanks @mgymrek |
Thanks @scan2001. Can you please ensure the Zenodo release has the same title and author list as the JOSS paper for consistency? Then we should be ready to go. |
Thanks @mgymrek. We set Zenodo release title and authors so that they are the same as those in the paper |
@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3381523 as archive |
OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3381523 is the archive. |
Thanks @scan2001. I noticed the version on this thread is listed as 2.0 but on Zenodo it says v1.0. Could you clarify which version number the final release is, and make sure that matches with what is listed on Zenodo? |
Thanks @mgymrek. We named the release v1.0 because it's the first release we did specifically for the Zenodo archive, while version 2.0 doesn't concern the release, it was only written by one collaborator in the description without any particular reason, actually we don't have 2 version of this software. |
@whedon set v1.0 as version |
OK. v1.0 is the version. |
ok, Thanks @scan2001. |
@whedon accept |
|
Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#956 If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#956, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag
|
@whedon accept deposit=true |
|
🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦 |
🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨 Here's what you must now do:
Any issues? notify your editorial technical team... |
@timClicks - many thanks for your review here and to @mgymrek for editing this submission ✨ @scan2001 - your paper is now accepted into JOSS ⚡🚀💥 |
🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉 If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:
This is how it will look in your documentation: 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:
|
Submitting author: @scan2001 (andrea sciandra)
Repository: https://github.com/livioivil/TextWiller
Version: v1.0
Editor: @mgymrek
Reviewer: @timClicks
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3381523
Status
Status badge code:
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
@timClicks, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @mgymrek know.
✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨
Review checklist for @timClicks
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
paper.md
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: