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]: Scyland3D: Processing 3D landmarks #1262

Closed
whedon opened this issue Feb 18, 2019 · 122 comments
Closed

[REVIEW]: Scyland3D: Processing 3D landmarks #1262

whedon opened this issue Feb 18, 2019 · 122 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator

@whedon whedon commented Feb 18, 2019

Submitting author: @ybayle (Yann Bayle)
Repository: https://github.com/ybayle/Scyland3D
Version: v1.1.0
Editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Reviewers: @r-barnes, @patrikhuber
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3637546

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/4e9dd95a8c973bce0b723a5795a22f58"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/4e9dd95a8c973bce0b723a5795a22f58/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/4e9dd95a8c973bce0b723a5795a22f58/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/4e9dd95a8c973bce0b723a5795a22f58)

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

@r-barnes, 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 @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman know.

Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks

Review checklist for @r-barnes

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: v1.1.0
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@ybayle) 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 @patrikhuber

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: v1.1.0
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@ybayle) 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 whedon commented Feb 18, 2019

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @r-barnes 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 whedon commented Feb 18, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Feb 18, 2019

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Feb 18, 2019

@r-barnes thanks. This is where the review takes place and you can see the tickboxes at the top here. Note there are also instructions to avoid the spam you mentioned. Let me know if you have questions.

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Feb 18, 2019

@ybayle this is where the review takes place. Please also note the comments by @patrikhuber over at #1153

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Mar 1, 2019

@r-barnes are you able to start the review process? Thanks

@labarba

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@labarba labarba commented Mar 7, 2019

I notice that the .py file mentions MIT License, while the LICENSE file is GNU.
https://github.com/ybayle/Scyland3D/blob/1d219d40a8327515d936b94a2d1d4ce7060c0f16/Scyland3D.py#L5

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Mar 20, 2019

@r-barnes can you please confirm you are able to continue with the review process? Thanks

@ybayle

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@ybayle ybayle commented Mar 20, 2019

I notice that the .py file mentions MIT License, while the LICENSE file is GNU.
https://github.com/ybayle/Scyland3D/blob/1d219d40a8327515d936b94a2d1d4ce7060c0f16/Scyland3D.py#L5

Thanks for noticing! We have updated our license consistently accordingly.

@patrikhuber

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@patrikhuber patrikhuber commented Mar 27, 2019

I am moving my comments from the other thread to here, I think they would be more appropriate here since the other thread is closed.


Overview

It seems to me that in general, this software is for a very, very limited use case (which of course isn't necessarily bad!). Basically, the main thing it does:

  1. Reads .pts landmarks from a software called "Landmark software (v3.6)" and converts them to a .csv format
  2. It can mirror and re-order those landmarks while converting them. The mirroring potentially seems like it can be a bit tricky (see more below).

Comments/questions:

  • The Readme needs a better introduction in my opinion. It states

Scyland3D is a Python tool for converting 3D raw landmark and semilandmark coordinates to a usable format for geometric morphometric analyses

but if you're not from exactly that field, you're going to have a hard time discerning if the tool is useful or not, because "3D raw landmarks" is such a large field. I am not from the author's field directly but "geometric morphometric analysis" looks like it is in fact what I know by the term shape analysis, which is a really broad field, with thousands of different landmark formats. And Sciland3D seems only for one specific task in one very particular field (or perhaps even one particular lab or commercial software), without much broader applicability, I think. At least for me as a computer vision researcher, having worked with statistical shape models a lot, I had a hard time figuring out what this exactly is and does.

  • The PDF and repo don't explain or introduce what "semilandmarks" are. I've worked with facial landmark points for many years and don't believe I've come across this term. Also no example seems to make use of them, as far as I can tell. Some explanation here would be really great.

  • The Readme mentions .pts files but not what they are or where they're coming from. We have .pts files too in the facial landmarks community and they are something completely different (e.g. see https://github.com/patrikhuber/eos/blob/master/examples/data/image_0010.pts).
    The PDF says they're ".pts files, exported by the Landmark software (v3.6)" but it also doesn't help much - please add a link/reference to that "Landmark software (v3.6)" or even better, to the format definition as well.

To sum that part up, I think there's way more context needed, and the name "Scyland3D: Processing 3D landmarks" may also be too general.

Specific comments regarding the paper (PDF):

  • The abstract says "convert them to a usable format". Why would the pts files be a less usable format than csv files? I believe that might be the wrong motivation or the motivation is just misstated. Both formats are probably useful, but data conversion is part of our daily jobs so we just want to to be as easy, painless and error-free as possible.

  • I believe "ie" should have periods, i.e. (no pun intended... :-) ) "i.e.". Also I wouldn't italicise it but I'm not sure whether that's perhaps just personal preference. Italicising is for emphasising and what you want to emphasise there is in situ and not the "i.e." :-) (see e.g. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/3911/correct-spelling-italicization-of-e-g-i-e)

  • "Few free software solutions allow digitizing 3D landmarks and semilandmarks [...]": What do you mean with that? Store them to the disk? I think again what you probably mean is that few ready-made scripts exist that convert between all the many formats?

  • "checks and reports [...] Consistency of folder and file names" In what way does it check that, what naming scheme does it expect?

  • "checks and reports [...] Precision of landmark and semilandmark coordinates export by the Landmark software." - I can't find anything about that in the code?

  • "mirrored objects have reverted bending" What do you mean with bending here?

Specifically with regards to the code:

  • How useful is the mirroring? For it to be useful, you usually have to mirror the original data too (in your case e.g. the teeth point-cloud), in the same way. Furthermore it seems to me that e.g. in the example given in Figure 1, this only works if the landmarks are placed in a symmetric way in the first place (i.e. if 1 is the "mirror-point" of 7, etc.).

  • The code could use more documentation in general. A tiny bit longer function documentation, but also in-code comments. Code should be either self-explanatory and need no comments (best case) or have appropriate comments, where needed.

  • Here it says something about a comparison "up to epsilon": https://github.com/ybayle/Scyland3D/blob/1d219d40a8327515d936b94a2d1d4ce7060c0f16/Scyland3D.py#L80
    But in the following code, I can't find any comparison up to an epsilon, only equality checks. It may very well be that I don't read the code correctly and I haven't run it either but it kind of reinforces my point from above about documentation.

  • https://github.com/ybayle/Scyland3D/blob/1d219d40a8327515d936b94a2d1d4ce7060c0f16/Scyland3D.py#L106-L107
    It would be nice to know here what's "good" about one link and "wrong" about one link. There seem to be some peculiarities at play here, and even a StackOverflow answer with most upvotes and comments like "This one should be marked as the correct answer." that apparently has gotten something important wrong. Let us know about it please, and also again, please put comments in that function and let us know which ones were/are the tricky bits.
    From what I can see, that function (reverse_z) is actually one of the main contributions of the proposed submission.

Some of those comments might be a bit picky but in particular because I don't think this contribution is particularly big, it is even more important that the small thing that is contributed is as useful as possible and can be used by people being assured it doesn't have any bugs, or if they do need to check something, the code should be documented clearly enough to make it easy.

Good luck and all the best! :-)

@r-barnes

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@r-barnes r-barnes commented Mar 27, 2019

As far as I can tell there are no tests. Is this a problem?

@r-barnes

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@r-barnes r-barnes commented Mar 27, 2019

I've completed the JOSS rubric and have raised concerns linked above.

@r-barnes

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@r-barnes r-barnes commented Mar 27, 2019

(I want to apologize for the delay in getting to this review, I've been experiencing some issues with RSI which is made it difficult to keep up with computer-based tasks. I'm now using a speech recognition program to do the review, so I apologize for any grammatical errors or odd choices of words.)

Many of the issues that I've raised are on the target repository.

I share @patrikhuber's concerns that this piece of software is super specific. When I saw the name of the software and description of the softer, I expected to find a large amount of code relating to the manipulation of 3D points, instead the softer it appears to consist predominantly of what's essentially a utility function for a much larger pipeline. Given the limited scope of the software, I would have difficulty recommending it for publication.

Similar to the other reviewer, I don't see any kind of epsilon cutoff to deal with floating-point issues. I also worry about the utility of the mirroring, it seems as though the user has to specify the plane of the mirror. it seems to me that this is a problem that is better suited to a technique such as iterative closest point or optimal transport.

The code is at times verbose:

coord = []
    for item in data:
        tmp = []
        for xyz in item.split(","):
            tmp.append(float(xyz))
coord.append(tmp)

could be rendered as

coord = [float(c) for item in data for c in item.split(",")]

Granted, such techniques should not be employed where they impede the readability of code, but I think there are several instances in which the existing code is more complex than is necessary. export2csv() might be the best example of this, since Python includes an entire core module for solving exactly this problem.

This contribution is small enough that it should be as perfect and rock-solid as possible. For that, I'm looking for cleaner, better-commented code, test cases, and an exceptionally well-explained use case. Even so, I think this function is just too limited in scope to make a good contribution.

@r-barnes

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@r-barnes r-barnes commented Apr 1, 2019

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Apr 9, 2019

Thanks @r-barnes for your review work and detailed comments!

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Apr 9, 2019

Thanks @patrikhuber also for your comments here!

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Apr 9, 2019

@ybayle can you formulate a detailed reply to the above comments?

@ybayle

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@ybayle ybayle commented Apr 10, 2019

Yes, I have started to fix some issues reported by the reviewers on the main repo! I'll keep you updated.

@r-barnes

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@r-barnes r-barnes commented Apr 19, 2019

Thanks all, do ping me when I'm next needed.

@r-barnes

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@r-barnes r-barnes commented May 6, 2019

I notice that I've been assigned. Should I review again?

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented May 15, 2019

@r-barnes I think we are still waiting for @ybayle to implement changes and work on the issues reported. @ybayle can you provide an update as to where we stand? Thanks!

@ybayle

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@ybayle ybayle commented May 19, 2019

Sorry for the delay, I am fixing the issues reported and will get back to you ASAP. I just have to finish something else before. I'll ping when everything will be ready!

@labarba

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@labarba labarba commented Jun 8, 2019

👋 @ybayle — Can you give us an update? If you're not close to done, please let me know of a time period to set a reminder for you.

@ybayle

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@ybayle ybayle commented Jun 12, 2019

@labarba: Sorry for the delay, I have taken into account most comments from @r-barnes in the last commits and started processing comments from @patrikhuber locally that will be pushed soon.

@ybayle

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@ybayle ybayle commented Jun 13, 2019

@patrikhuber
Thank you for your valuable comments to improve our submission, we detail below our changes.

The Readme needs a better introduction in my opinion.
The PDF and repo don't explain or introduce what "semilandmarks" are.

The ReadMe and the paper have been updated accordingly.

The Readme mentions .pts files but not what they are or where they're coming from. We have .pts files too in the facial landmarks community and they are something completely different (e.g. see https://github.com/patrikhuber/eos/blob/master/examples/data/image_0010.pts).

As I can see, we provide as examples nearly the same .pts files except, we have an additional column for values for the z-axis. We added a link in the paper and in the ReadMe to the definition of the .pts file format we use.

"Few free software solutions allow digitizing 3D landmarks and semilandmarks [...]": What do you mean with that? Store them to the disk? I think again what you probably mean is that few ready-made scripts exist that convert between all the many formats?

You raise an interesting question there about the variety of vocabulary used here. We saw in numerous places (e.g. https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/geomorph/versions/3.1.2/topics/digitize2d or http://people.tamu.edu/~alawing/materials/ESSM689/Quick_Guide_to_Geomorph_v2.0.pdf) the word "digitizing" used for "data acquisition". In order to avoid confusion with other readers we used both words in the paper.

"mirrored objects have reverted bending" What do you mean with bending here?
How useful is the mirroring? For it to be useful, you usually have to mirror the original data too (in your case e.g. the teeth point-cloud), in the same way. Furthermore it seems to me that e.g. in the example given in Figure 1, this only works if the landmarks are placed in a symmetric way in the first place (i.e. if 1 is the "mirror-point" of 7, etc.).

We are talking here about the main curvature a surface can display in terms of how much they display a concave or convex shape on a given axis. In our example with shark's teeth, they are longer (x) than wide (y) and very thin (z). Teeth are concave on the z-axis and their tip are not centred relatively to their base. So, when you mirror them to match left teeth to right teeth, you have their base and tip that are overlapping but you one is concave while the other is convex as can be seen on their z-axis. That's why "mirrored objects have reverted bending".

The code could use more documentation in general. A tiny bit longer function documentation, but also in-code comments. Code should be either self-explanatory and need no comments (best case) or have appropriate comments, where needed.

We had the same comment from the second reviewer and updated our code accordingly.

Here it says something about a comparison "up to epsilon": https://github.com/ybayle/Scyland3D/blob/1d219d40a8327515d936b94a2d1d4ce7060c0f16/Scyland3D.py#L80 But in the following code, I can't find any comparison up to an epsilon, only equality checks. It may very well be that I don't read the code correctly and I haven't run it either but it kind of reinforces my point from above about documentation.

Indeed, the first version of the script was using an epsilon as a workaround to report duplicated landmarks in the exported .pts files. A better solution has been found since. The comment is now updated.

@r-barnes

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@r-barnes r-barnes commented Jan 27, 2020

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman : Things look largely good to me. The software/repo seem to be in good shape. The readability and documentation of the code is sufficient. The pip installation works. I remain concerned about the specificity of the software, but leave that to the editors.

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Jan 28, 2020

Thanks @r-barnes @patrikhuber for your additional comments and all the help with this review! I understand the concerns about the specificity of the software. Our submission requirements do not currently list restrictions in relation to how extremely specific/niche software might be. We've had to reject submission in the past for being too specific/niche but only because they were so exotic or specialized that we were unable to find any suitable reviewers. In this case this what not the problem. I suppose perhaps if software is too specific it might not be classified as a "significant contribution" (which is in the guidelines). However in this case I feel this software offers a significant enough contribution to warrant publication. We may reflect on our submission requirements/guidelines though to perhaps include statements on how "specific/niche" software is.
Thanks again for your valuable contributions here!

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Jan 28, 2020

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jan 28, 2020

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Jan 29, 2020

@ybayle I will now proceed to process this submission for acceptance in JOSS.

At this point can you:

  • Archive the software on ZENODO and report back the DOI of the archived version here? Please ensure the title and author list of the ZENODO archived version match those of the paper (you may need to edit this information manually) .
  • Can you inform me of the version tag that matches that archived version? Is it still at v1.0.19?
  • This work is about to be accepted in JOSS. Can you please proofread the paper yourself one last time?

About the paper:

  • the paper contains both csv (e.g. in ... to a csv format) and CSV. Can you check you use CSV consistently throughout the text.
  • In use noise not noises in ...may bring noises in the results.
  • Change Presence of duplicates landmark... to Presence of duplicate landmarks...
  • Rephrase ...the two reviewers that helped improved a lot the code and the documentation. to ...the two reviewers who helped improve the code and the documentation a lot.
@ybayle

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@ybayle ybayle commented Jan 30, 2020

Thank you for all your helpful comments. Before archiving the repo we'll update the last comments on the article and the code. We'll keep you updated.

@ybayle

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@ybayle ybayle commented Feb 4, 2020

We proofread the paper again and generated a new version with the latest fixes: v1.1.0 cf https://pypi.org/project/Scyland3D/1.1.0/.
The Zenodo DOI is https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3637546 but is not accessible yet. It's the first time that I used Zenodo, do I have to wait few days before Zenodo displays correctly every information?

@ybayle

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@ybayle ybayle commented Feb 5, 2020

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Feb 5, 2020

@ybayle

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@ybayle ybayle commented Feb 5, 2020

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
The generated article proof and the Zenodo are ok. What is the next step?

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Feb 7, 2020

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3637546 as archive

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Feb 7, 2020

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3637546 is the archive.

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Feb 7, 2020

@whedon set v1.1.0 as version

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Feb 7, 2020

OK. v1.1.0 is the version.

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Feb 7, 2020

@ybayle looks like we are all set.

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Feb 7, 2020

@whedon accept

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Feb 7, 2020

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Feb 7, 2020

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.4404/hystrix-24.1-6283 is OK
- 10.11646/zootaxa.4461.1.8 is OK
- 10.1186/s12862-015-0285-5 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0206984 is OK
- 10.1111/zoj.12403 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-012778460-1/50007-7 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Feb 7, 2020

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#1281

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#1281, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true
@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Feb 7, 2020

@openjournals/joss-eics this paper is ready to be processed

@kthyng

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@kthyng kthyng commented Feb 8, 2020

@whedon accept deposit=true

@whedon whedon added the accepted label Feb 8, 2020
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Feb 8, 2020

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Feb 8, 2020

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Feb 8, 2020

🚨🚨🚨 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#1284
  2. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01262
  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...

@kthyng

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@kthyng kthyng commented Feb 8, 2020

Congratulations to @ybayle on your new publications! Thanks for editor @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman and to reviewers @r-barnes and @patrikhuber for your time and expertise.

@kthyng kthyng closed this Feb 8, 2020
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Feb 8, 2020

🎉🎉🎉 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.01262/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01262)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01262">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01262/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01262/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01262

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:

@ybayle

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@ybayle ybayle commented Feb 10, 2020

@kthyng @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman @r-barnes @patrikhuber Thank you very much for your help!

@patrikhuber

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@patrikhuber patrikhuber commented Feb 10, 2020

@ybayle Congratulations on the acceptance!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
8 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.