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]: 3D reconstruction toolbox for behavior tracked with multiple cameras #1849

Closed
whedon opened this issue Oct 30, 2019 · 63 comments
Closed
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator

@whedon whedon commented Oct 30, 2019

Submitting author: @SwathiSheshadri (Swathi Sheshadri)
Repository: https://github.com/SwathiSheshadri/pose3d
Version: v2.2.1
Editor: @cMadan
Reviewer: @danasolav, @sreschechtko
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3589990

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8e825866efe9a51e8f095d20bf99fd60"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8e825866efe9a51e8f095d20bf99fd60/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8e825866efe9a51e8f095d20bf99fd60/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8e825866efe9a51e8f095d20bf99fd60)

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

@danasolav & @sreschechtko, 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 @cMadan know.

Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks

Review checklist for @danasolav

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 (@SwathiSheshadri) 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 @sreschechtko

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 (@SwathiSheshadri) 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

@whedon whedon commented Oct 30, 2019

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

@whedon whedon commented Oct 30, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Oct 30, 2019

@SwathiSheshadri

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@SwathiSheshadri SwathiSheshadri commented Oct 30, 2019

@danasolav, @sreschechtko thank you for taking time to review our submission.
@cMadan, please assign the latest release version v1.1.0 for review.

@cMadan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@cMadan cMadan commented Oct 30, 2019

@whedon set v1.1.0 as version

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Oct 30, 2019

OK. v1.1.0 is the version.

@sreschechtko

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@sreschechtko sreschechtko commented Nov 18, 2019

I was able to install the package and run the demo as well as my own data. I have raised some issues (#1-6) which I ran into during this process and which I would like to see addressed before recommending the publication of this package in JOSS.

@cMadan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@cMadan cMadan commented Nov 19, 2019

@sreschechtko, thank you for the update!

@SwathiSheshadri

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@SwathiSheshadri SwathiSheshadri commented Nov 21, 2019

Thank you very much @sreschechtko for your time as well as for giving us detailed and very constructive review comments. We are very happy to hear that the code ran for you for the demo as well as for your own data. We will work on the issues you have raised at the repository and write back to you here.

@danasolav

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

@danasolav danasolav commented Dec 2, 2019

I have installed and ran the demo successfully. I would like to run my own data which was not acquired using DLC. Therefore I have raised an issue (#7) regarding the instructions for creating the csv file which is used as input.

@SwathiSheshadri

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@SwathiSheshadri SwathiSheshadri commented Dec 3, 2019

@sreschechtko, please see our responses on the issues you raised at pose3d (#1-6). We have addressed the issues and have updated the repository to reflect the changes. Please use the latest release of pose3d v2.0.0 to see the changes done to pose3d as per your comments. We found your feedback and detailed comments very helpful for us in refining our repository for public use and we thank you very much again for your time and effort and look forward to hearing from you!

@SwathiSheshadri

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@SwathiSheshadri SwathiSheshadri commented Dec 3, 2019

@danasolav, we developed pose3d using our 2D tracked data from DLC and we are very happy to hear that you have 2D tracked data outside of DLC framework as this will help us get your perspective on our code for this particular use-case. In our latest release of pose3d (v2.0.0), we have updated the readme file (addressing issue #7) to include details on preparing the .csv files required for pose3d when using a different software for 2D tracking. Looking forward to hearing more about your experience with pose3d!

@sreschechtko

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@sreschechtko sreschechtko commented Dec 9, 2019

Thank you for responding to my review issues. I have closed the majority of issues because I think they are satisfactorily addressed, although I had a few minor comments on 5 and 7.

The only issue I raised which I am leaving open is 3 for plotting 2D data with the 3D reconstruction. I think pose3d should have the option to plot the 2d points (which it already has access to) on an un-annotated video since annotated video is not necessarily commonly saved output. I would also like to a see more descriptive error message in the plotter if the video is not available but the option to plot it has been selected.

@SwathiSheshadri

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@SwathiSheshadri SwathiSheshadri commented Dec 11, 2019

Thank you for closing the issues @sreschechtko
I have addressed the open issue #3 as well as the minor comments in the latest release of pose3d (v2.1.1).
The plotting function has been updated to allow feature annotation along with plotting video frames/images used for 2D tracking recorded from primary camera. Alternatively, make_illustrative_movie.m helper function is now updated to allow users to flexibly select from any number of perspectives they want to visualize alongside 3D reconstructed results. Furthermore, error handling in the config file has been upgraded to deal with missing video/image path entries in the config file. I have also removed the requirement of user input for frame rate and duration of recording parameters in the config file to make editing the config file easier, thereby, less error prone.
I again thank you both (@danasolav and @sreschechtko) for your time and very helpful feedback and would be very happy to hear back from you.

@sreschechtko

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@sreschechtko sreschechtko commented Dec 21, 2019

Hi All, I have closed all of the issues I opened on the main repository and am happy to recommend the package/article for publication in JOSS.

@SwathiSheshadri

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@SwathiSheshadri SwathiSheshadri commented Dec 21, 2019

Thank you for closing all the issues @danasolav and @sreschechtko. Your feedback was immensely valuable towards making pose3d better for public use and we are very grateful to both of you for your time and effort! @cMadan, we are very thankful to you and the JOSS team for taking time to edit our submission. We request you to use the latest release of pose3d - version v2.2.1, archived with following DOI at Zenodo 10.5281/zenodo.3589990 , for further processing at JOSS and look forward to hearing from you about the next steps to take for our submission!

@cMadan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@cMadan cMadan commented Dec 25, 2019

Thank you for the thorough reviews, @danasolav and @sreschechtko!

@cMadan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@cMadan cMadan commented Dec 25, 2019

@whedon set v2.2.1 as version

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Dec 25, 2019

OK. v2.2.1 is the version.

@cMadan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@cMadan cMadan commented Dec 25, 2019

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3589990 as archive

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Dec 25, 2019

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3589990 is the archive.

@cMadan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@cMadan cMadan commented Dec 25, 2019

@SwathiSheshadri, please revise the archive name in Zenodo to match the name of your submission.

@cMadan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@cMadan cMadan commented Dec 25, 2019

@whedon check references

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Dec 25, 2019

Attempting to check references...
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Dec 25, 2019


OK DOIs

- 10.1038/s41593-018-0209-y is OK
- 10.1038/s41596-019-0176-0 is OK
- 10.1109/CVPR.2016.90 is OK
- 10.1109/CVPR.2009.5206848 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3364758 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
@cMadan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@cMadan cMadan commented Dec 25, 2019

@SwathiSheshadri, I'm not sure why that isn't working, but will look into it.

@openjournals/joss-eics, it looks like the archive link in the compiled PDF isn't working. Any ideas why (or how we might otherwise resolve this)?

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Dec 26, 2019

@cMadan

@openjournals/joss-eics, it looks like the archive link in the compiled PDF isn't working. Any ideas why (or how we might otherwise resolve this)?

Those links should be fixed in the final accepted version. Some automatically generated links are not active in these proofs (all author generated links should work though).
FYI in the future you can also address @openjournals/dev for technical support

@SwathiSheshadri

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@SwathiSheshadri SwathiSheshadri commented Dec 26, 2019

@cMadan and @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman, thank you for your quick responses! I have checked that the other links in the document are working fine.

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@arfon arfon commented Dec 29, 2019

@openjournals/joss-eics, it looks like the archive link in the compiled PDF isn't working. Any ideas why (or how we might otherwise resolve this)?

Yeah, sorry about this. That's undocumented behaviour and very confusing...

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@arfon arfon commented Dec 29, 2019

@whedon accept

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Dec 29, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@arfon arfon commented Dec 29, 2019

@cMadan - as an editor you are able to ask Whedon to make final proofs of the PDF with @whedon accept and these PDFs should have working links.

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Dec 29, 2019


OK DOIs

- 10.1038/s41593-018-0209-y is OK
- 10.1038/s41596-019-0176-0 is OK
- 10.1109/CVPR.2016.90 is OK
- 10.1109/CVPR.2009.5206848 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3364758 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Dec 29, 2019

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#1202

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#1202, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true
@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jan 6, 2020

@SwathiSheshadri - please fix the cases (upper vs lower) in the bib entries - use {}s to protect cases where needed.

@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jan 6, 2020

@cMadan - Other than the case issue in the bib, is this otherwise ready to accept?

@SwathiSheshadri

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@SwathiSheshadri SwathiSheshadri commented Jan 6, 2020

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jan 6, 2020

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jan 6, 2020

@SwathiSheshadri

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@SwathiSheshadri SwathiSheshadri commented Jan 6, 2020

@danielskatz, thank you for your response and input on the case issue in the .bib file. It is now updated.

@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jan 7, 2020

@whedon accept

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jan 7, 2020

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jan 7, 2020

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/s41593-018-0209-y is OK
- 10.1038/s41596-019-0176-0 is OK
- 10.1109/CVPR.2016.90 is OK
- 10.1109/CVPR.2009.5206848 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3364758 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jan 7, 2020

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#1207

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#1207, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true
@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jan 7, 2020

👋 @arfon - note ref6 has the same incomplete URL problem...

@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jan 7, 2020

@whedon accept deposit=true

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jan 7, 2020

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...
@whedon whedon added the accepted label Jan 7, 2020
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jan 7, 2020

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jan 7, 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#1208
  2. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01849
  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...

@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jan 7, 2020

Thanks to @danasolav and @sreschechtko for reviewing!
And to @cMadan for editing!
And congratulations to @SwathiSheshadri and co-authors!

@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jan 7, 2020

👋 @arfon - can you fix the XML (ref6), and then close this?

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@arfon arfon commented Jan 7, 2020

Fixed.

@arfon arfon closed this Jan 7, 2020
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jan 7, 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.01849/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01849)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01849">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01849/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01849/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01849

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.