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]: TextWiller: collection of text mining utilities, specially devoted to the Italian language #1256

Closed
whedon opened this issue Feb 15, 2019 · 72 comments

Comments

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator

commented Feb 15, 2019

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

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/631dac1f05dcf07a36a5add954a31f90"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/631dac1f05dcf07a36a5add954a31f90/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/631dac1f05dcf07a36a5add954a31f90/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/631dac1f05dcf07a36a5add954a31f90)

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:

  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 @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

  • 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: v1.0
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@scan2001) 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

commented Feb 15, 2019

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:

  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

commented Feb 15, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Feb 15, 2019

@mgymrek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Feb 15, 2019

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:

Submissions that implement solutions already solved in other software packages are accepted into JOSS provided that they meet the criteria listed above and cite prior similar work. [emphasis added]

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:

As part of the review process, you are asked to check whether the submitting author has made a ‘substantial contribution’ to the submitted software (as determined by the commit history) and to check that ‘the full list of paper authors seems appropriate and complete?’

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.

@mgymrek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Feb 15, 2019

@timClicks thanks for starting the review! would you also be able to fill out the checklist here?

@mgymrek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 4, 2019

Hi @timClicks I just wanted to check in on this

@timClicks

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Mar 11, 2019

@mgymrek Apologies on the delay. Will make my way through installation this week.

@mgymrek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 25, 2019

hi @timClicks I just wanted to ping you about the review. I see you've started the checklist.

@labarba

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 15, 2019

👋 @timClicks — can you update us on your status with this review?

@mgymrek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Apr 25, 2019

@timClicks can you give us an update if you will be able to complete this review?

@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented May 20, 2019

👋 @timClicks - we haven't heard from you in about 10 weeks now - are you still planning to perform this review?

@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented May 23, 2019

@timClicks

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented May 27, 2019

Statement of need from paper.md, l 32

The main quality of this software is to be one of the few text mining R packages in Italian language. Moreover, TextWiller can help social media researchers with some specific functions for the data extracted from Twitter via APIs.

@timClicks

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented May 27, 2019

Installation was very easy, TextWiller's dependencies were fully satisfied by installing the devtools library as recommended in the instructions.

@timClicks

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented May 27, 2019

Functionality documentation provided by TextWiller is comprehensive with examples. All public functions appear to be documented in RMarkdown in the /man directory, as is conventional for R projects.

@timClicks

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented May 27, 2019

References do not include any archival resources, so I have marked this as a pass.

@timClicks

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented May 27, 2019

@whedon commands

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented May 27, 2019

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors

# List of reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers

EDITORIAL TASKS

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf

# Compile the paper from alternative branch
@whedon generate pdf from branch custom-branch-name

# Ask Whedon to check the references for missing DOIs
@whedon check references

@timClicks

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented May 27, 2019

@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.

@mgymrek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 6, 2019

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

@scan2001

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 7, 2019

Thanks @mgymrek and @timClicks.
We will add tests for TextWiller functionality and the guidelines for community members to contribute or get support.

@kyleniemeyer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 26, 2019

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?

@scan2001

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 26, 2019

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.

@kyleniemeyer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 26, 2019

@whedon remind @scan2001 in 2.5 weeks

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Jun 26, 2019

I don't recognize this description of time '2.5' 'weeks'.

@kyleniemeyer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 26, 2019

@whedon remind @scan2001 in 3 weeks

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Aug 29, 2019


OK DOIs

- 10.3115/1220575.1220619 is OK
- 10.1007/978-88-470-5532-2 is OK
- 10.1016/c2010-0-66188-8 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
@scan2001

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 29, 2019

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3381523 as archive

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Aug 29, 2019

I'm sorry @scan2001, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do.

@scan2001

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 29, 2019

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Aug 29, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Aug 29, 2019

@scan2001

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 29, 2019

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Aug 29, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Aug 29, 2019

@scan2001

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 30, 2019

Thanks @mgymrek
We fixed the typos, added DOIs to all references (except the last two: a book and a thesis, as they haven't a DOI) and created an archive in Zenodo.
This is the archive DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3381523

@mgymrek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 1, 2019

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.

@scan2001

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 2, 2019

Thanks @mgymrek. We set Zenodo release title and authors so that they are the same as those in the paper

@mgymrek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 4, 2019

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3381523 as archive

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Sep 4, 2019

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3381523 is the archive.

@mgymrek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 4, 2019

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?

@scan2001

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 4, 2019

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.

@mgymrek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 8, 2019

@whedon set v1.0 as version

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Sep 8, 2019

OK. v1.0 is the version.

@mgymrek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 8, 2019

ok, Thanks @scan2001.
@openjournals/joss-eics we are ready to accept this submission.

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Sep 8, 2019

@whedon accept

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Sep 8, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Sep 8, 2019

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 deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true
@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Sep 8, 2019

@whedon accept deposit=true

@whedon whedon added the accepted label Sep 8, 2019

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Sep 8, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Sep 8, 2019

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Sep 8, 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#957
  2. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01256
  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

commented Sep 8, 2019

@timClicks - many thanks for your review here and to @mgymrek for editing this submission

@scan2001 - your paper is now accepted into JOSS ⚡️🚀💥

@arfon arfon closed this Sep 8, 2019

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Sep 8, 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](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01256/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01256)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01256">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01256/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01256/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01256

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:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
8 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.