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]: pentapy: A Python toolbox for pentadiagonal linear systems #1759

Closed
whedon opened this issue Sep 24, 2019 · 67 comments

Comments

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator

commented Sep 24, 2019

Submitting author: @MuellerSeb (Sebastian Müller)
Repository: https://github.com/GeoStat-Framework/pentapy
Version: v1.0.2
Editor: @drvinceknight
Reviewer: @inakleinbottle, @virgesmith
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3474843

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/57c3bbdd7b7f3068dd1e669ccbcf107c"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/57c3bbdd7b7f3068dd1e669ccbcf107c/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/57c3bbdd7b7f3068dd1e669ccbcf107c/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/57c3bbdd7b7f3068dd1e669ccbcf107c)

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

@inakleinbottle & @virgesmith, 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 @drvinceknight know.

Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks

Review checklist for @inakleinbottle

Conflict of interest

  • I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

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?
  • Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@MuellerSeb) 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 functionality 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

  • Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
  • Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
  • References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

Review checklist for @virgesmith

Conflict of interest

  • I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

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?
  • Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@MuellerSeb) 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 functionality 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

  • Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
  • Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
  • References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Sep 24, 2019

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

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

@whedon generate pdf
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Sep 24, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Sep 24, 2019

@MuellerSeb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 24, 2019

Thanks everybody for the level-up!
Thanks @inakleinbottle for your detailed review. I will try to elaborate all your points.
Thanks @virgesmith for volunteering as reviewer.

@MuellerSeb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 24, 2019

My response to @inakleinbottle can be found here: GeoStat-Framework/pentapy#1 (comment)

@inakleinbottle

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 30, 2019

I have a query for the editor: copied from my review

  • You might need to include references (at the end of the paper) to the packages mentioned in your paper: numpy, scipy, Cython, perfplot. This needs to be clarified by the JOSS editors.

What is the policy regarding citation of software packages in references? I should comment that these are clearly acknowledged in the paper, but are not included in the list of references.

@drvinceknight

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Sep 30, 2019

Hi @inakleinbottle, good question, I note that scipy has been referenced however I feel that on this occasion references for cython and perfplot would be helpful for the reader (for example reading the paper myself I was not familiar with perfplot).

I do not feel strongly about including a reference for numpy in the context of the text of the paper but I would suggest that it could be nice to include it for completeness.

Does that sound ok to you @MuellerSeb ?

@MuellerSeb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 30, 2019

@drvinceknight : Thank you for working out a way to go. I will include a reference to the github repositories of numpy and perfplot (numpy has no "real" code-publication and perfplot is a rather small package without any publications). In case of Cython, a dedicated publication exists.

@MuellerSeb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 30, 2019

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Sep 30, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Sep 30, 2019

@MuellerSeb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Oct 1, 2019

My response to @virgesmith can be found here: GeoStat-Framework/pentapy#2 (comment)

@virgesmith

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Oct 2, 2019

@drvinceknight I am happy to recommend this package now, @MuellerSeb has addressed all the points I raised.

@inakleinbottle

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Oct 2, 2019

@drvinceknight I too am now happy to recommend this package.

@drvinceknight

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Oct 2, 2019

Wonderful! Thank you all for your efforts and congratulations @MuellerSeb. 👍

@drvinceknight

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Oct 2, 2019

@whedon check references

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Oct 2, 2019

Attempting to check references...
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Oct 2, 2019


OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.2587158 is OK
- 10.1155/2015/232456 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-43409-4 is OK
- 10.1002/hyp.10064 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2010.118 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
@MuellerSeb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Oct 2, 2019

@virgesmith and @inakleinbottle thank you for your detailed reviews. That really helped to further improve the package! @drvinceknight thank you for being such a nice editor!
Thanks everybody!

@drvinceknight

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Oct 2, 2019

@openjournals/joss-eics this paper is ready to be accepted (unless I've missed something - this is my first paper as editor so please let me know if I'm forgetting something).

@MuellerSeb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Oct 2, 2019

I will make a release of pentapy 1.0.1 that includes all changes to get a proper DOI.
This is in line with the paper, since Version 1.0 is mentioned there, so I think a newer PATCH release is ok.
(Maybe it could be a good hint for further papers to use a pre-released release candidate for the review)

@labarba

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Oct 2, 2019

👋 @drvinceknight — The pre-publication steps to request authors are:

  • Please make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here.
  • Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo
  • Check the Zenodo deposit has the correct metadata, this includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it); you may also add the authors' ORCID.
  • Please list the Zenodo DOI of the archived version here.
@MuellerSeb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Oct 2, 2019

Zenodo fails to release the 1.0.1 version... uargh!
I created an Issue: zenodo/zenodo#1878
BUT: the DOI in the paper references the "general" Zenodo publication, that means, it always directs to the latest version. Is that ok?

@MuellerSeb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Oct 2, 2019

@labarba I see. So I have to wait for Zenodo to resolve that issue.

@labarba

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Oct 2, 2019

The JOSS paper should link to the DOI for the specific version or the Zenodo archive that corresponds to the software as reviewed and improved for the JOSS publication (not the general DOI for all versions).

Also, note that the Zenodo archive DOI is displayed in the margin decorators of the first page, and we thus request that you do not add it in your list of references. (It will also be included in the metadata of the Crossref deposit for the paper.)

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Oct 8, 2019

@MuellerSeb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Oct 8, 2019

@labarba I merged your edits, removed the abbreviation and added the sys specs.

@labarba labarba referenced this issue Oct 8, 2019
@MuellerSeb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Oct 8, 2019

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Oct 8, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Oct 8, 2019

@MuellerSeb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Oct 8, 2019

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Oct 8, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Oct 8, 2019

@MuellerSeb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Oct 8, 2019

@labarba merged!

@labarba

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Oct 8, 2019

@whedon accept

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Oct 8, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Oct 8, 2019


OK DOIs

- 10.1155/2015/232456 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-43409-4 is OK
- 10.1002/hyp.10064 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2010.118 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Oct 8, 2019

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#1010

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#1010, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true
@labarba labarba added the accepted label Oct 8, 2019
@labarba

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Oct 8, 2019

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Oct 8, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Oct 8, 2019

@labarba

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Oct 8, 2019

@whedon accept deposit=true

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Oct 8, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Oct 8, 2019

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Oct 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#1011
  2. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01759
  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...

@labarba

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Oct 8, 2019

Congratulations, @MuellerSeb, your JOSS paper is published! 🚀

Huge thanks to our editor: @drvinceknight, and the reviewers: @inakleinbottle, @virgesmith — we couldn't do this without you 🙏

@labarba

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Oct 8, 2019

I'm not seeing the PDF yet, but the DOI resolves. I'll leave this issue open for now...

@MuellerSeb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Oct 8, 2019

YEAH! Thanks @drvinceknight, @inakleinbottle, @virgesmith and @labarba for this pleasant review!
I see the PDF ;-)
This was a very nice experience!

@labarba

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Oct 8, 2019

👋 @arfon —The PDF is not showing in the embedded frame for me, even though the file does exist ... see: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01759

@kyleniemeyer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Oct 9, 2019

@labarba @arfon just confirming that I can see the PDF

@labarba

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Oct 9, 2019

I see it now. Closing.

@labarba labarba closed this Oct 9, 2019
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Oct 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](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01759/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01759)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01759">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01759/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01759/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01759

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
7 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.