-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 36
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[REVIEW]: BigX: A geographical dataset visualisation tool #2537
Comments
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @liberostelios, @jvdkwast it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper 🎉. Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post. ⭐ Important ⭐ If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿 To fix this do the following two things:
For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
|
|
👋 @geekysquirrel it took some time (apologies) but now there are two knowledgeable reviewers and the review is starting. One comment on my part, perhaps you could comment here (or update the paper): I was wondering for which use-cases you see people using your work, and not QGIS for example? I find QGIS good/powerful/etc and it's free, so wondering where does your work fit and what is "simpler" with it. |
/ooo August 1 until August 16 |
Sorry @hugoledoux the notifications did not work for me. One use case where my team is currently using BigX is to publish preliminary results online for other people on the project to use. I am aware there's the QGIS cloud but I hope that makes sense. |
👋 Hey @geekysquirrel... Letting you know, |
I wasn't aware of QGIS Cloud and the pricing option. So yes it does make sense. Could you add this somehow to the paper? This seems important, and it positions the paper well wrt to others. |
I added a sentence explaining it although I tried to keep it as brief as possible as it still looks ever so slightly too long. |
I went through the review checklist. The software runs fine on my laptop and I could play around with the configuration based on the documentation. Documentation:
Software paper:
|
Oh, I'm surprised! To clarify: the tests are run on Node, not Electron but they should all pass. In the linting stage there are some warnings related to the fact the tool is "normally" run in a browser, not on Node, but there are no errors and the unit tests all pass (not just on my machine locally but you can also see the test results from the Gitlab demo deployment here). Can you tell me which tests fail for you? I have added some contributing guidelines to the readme. I'm a bit at a loss as to how much I should go into detail regarding the advantages. Here are a few from the top of my head:
I have added spaces before the references but I'm not sure I can see what the problem is with the reference list. Can you please clarify? |
Oh sorry I forgot to reply to your point about online use.
|
I've installed and used the software. It works fine on my laptop and I was able to play with some of the original data. The software seems to work as intended. But, same as mentioned by @hugoledoux and @jvdkwast before, I am a bit confused about the motivation. I can see @geekysquirrel arguments about how it compares to QGIS online, but I think there is some relevant software with similar functionality (for instance, qgis2web does something similar). I would like to see a comparison with them. Based on what I've read in the documentation, the paper and from @geekysquirrel's comments, I personally think that this app has a very niche, but clear use case: it's intended for people who are more comfortable with command-line applications and configuration files, instead of using GUI apps that require local installation. That, I guess, fits perfectly with someone who is working remotely on a server and wants to quickly view the resulting data of a process through their local browser, without having to download them from the server. I think that fits a lot with the modern way of doing things in data science, mostly, using containers and cloud services. Would you agree with that? The only part I find a bit vague, about this process, is what happens with the data. You mention both in the documentation, as well your comments here, that the data remain in the browser. Does that mean that the data need to be in a location that is already accessible by the end user (e.g. and ftp location) or does the BigX take care of serving the data as well? Some other minor suggestions:
Btw, the tests ran fine for me. |
okay, sorry everyone for my silence the last week, I was overwhelmed with other things. re: the novelty, I went back to the editors of JOSS. JOSS point of view is the software does not have to be something significantly new or novel, if it works fine and is useful for research (and all the checkboxes are clicked above!) then we can accept it. I found the first argument of @geekysquirrel about paying with QGIS a valid advantage, and what @liberostelios wrote about sysadmin working with servers also a clear and nice advantage. I suggest this is added to the paper? That being said, the point about qgis2web is also something to consider, and cite I'd say. For the rest, I see that there are still unchecked boxes above. After the scope/paper is updated, I assume that the last checkboxes can be approved. |
Thanks everybody for the feedback. I'm currently on annual leave but will update the paper as soon as I'm back. |
Right I have made some updates to the paper and documentation that should hopefully resolve the remaining issues. I could have sworn there was a restriction on length that required papers to be under two pages but I can't find it anywhere now so I guess it's fine to be 3 pages as the extra references blew the paper up quite a bit but the word count for the paper (I assume without the references?) is under 1000 so it should be fine. Also I'm not entirely sure whether I should replace all the links in the paper with references as some are not really related to my work and I only added the links to make it more usable. Should I leave it as it is, add references instead, or remove the links altogether? |
@whedon generate pdf |
Personally, I am happy with the improvements made by @geekysquirrel. The motivation is now more clear. I think the work is very well done, the documentation is thorough and it should be accepted. |
@jvdkwast : could you please check if the tests run for you? And confirm that all is good on your side? |
@jvdkwast : it would be nice if you could give us a sign if you're still alive. If you don't do so this week I'll have to finish this review without you. |
@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.4272105 as archive |
OK. 10.5281/zenodo.4272105 is the archive. |
@whedon set 2.1.1. as version |
OK. 2.1.1. is the version. |
@whedon accept |
|
|
👋 @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published. Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#1914 If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#1914, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag
|
👋 @geekysquirrel - In final prooreading (I'm the AEiC on duty this week) I've suggested two sets of changes to the paper and references in https://gitlab.com/geekysquirrel/bigx/-/merge_requests/9 and https://gitlab.com/geekysquirrel/bigx/-/merge_requests/8 Can you merge these or let me know what you disagree with in them? |
Thanks for your changes Daniel, you spotted a few things nobody else did. I'd also prefer to leave the punctuation in the bullet points because they are full sentences (including capitalised first words) and some sentences are spread over more than one line so I think they should keep the full stops. The triple dash was @hugoledoux 's suggestion - I have no strong opinion so I'll leave it as it is. Let me know if any of this is a showstopper. |
In latex the em-dash is 3, 2 is for a dash between 2 numbers. I believe 3 is right here. |
I think an endash is more correct here, but I'm not confident enough to argue about it |
@whedon accept |
|
|
👋 @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published. Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#1926 If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#1926, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag
|
@whedon accept deposit=true |
|
🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦 |
🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨 Here's what you must now do:
Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team... |
Congratulations to @geekysquirrel (Stefanie Wiegand)!! Thanks to @liberostelios & @jvdkwast for reviewing, and @hugoledoux for editing! |
🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉 If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:
This is how it will look in your documentation: We need your help! Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:
|
Submitting author: @geekysquirrel (Stefanie Wiegand)
Repository: https://gitlab.com/geekysquirrel/bigx
Version: 2.1.1.
Editor: @hugoledoux
Reviewer: @liberostelios, @jvdkwast
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.4272105
Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.
Status
Status badge code:
Reviewers and authors:
Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) 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
@liberostelios & @jvdkwast, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @hugoledoux know.
✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨
Review checklist for @liberostelios
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
Review checklist for @jvdkwast
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: