[REVIEW]: SCALAR - A Platform for Real-time Machine Learning Competitions on Data Streams

[whedon]

Submitting author: @nedRad88 (Nedeljko Radulovic)
Repository: https://github.com/nedRad88/SCALAR
Version: v0.1
Editor: @galessiorob
Reviewers: @GregaVrbancic, @atanikan, @xiaohk
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.4299807

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

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:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e7049c900cf5ab0754157be4a5668f11"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e7049c900cf5ab0754157be4a5668f11/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e7049c900cf5ab0754157be4a5668f11/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e7049c900cf5ab0754157be4a5668f11)

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

@GregaVrbancic & @atanikan, 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 @galessiorob 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 @GregaVrbancic

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

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS 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 (@nedRad88) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

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 @atanikan

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

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS 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 (@nedRad88) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

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 @xiaohk

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

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS 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 (@nedRad88) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

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]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @GregaVrbancic, @atanikan it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper 🎉.

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

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:

1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

2. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/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]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[whedon]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/2187671.2187677 is OK
- 10.1109/BigData47090.2019.9006357 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[galessiorob]

@whedon add @xiaohk as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, @xiaohk is now a reviewer

[galessiorob]

👋 @GregaVrbancic , @xiaohk and @atanikan

Thank you all for volunteering as reviewers for this paper! At the top, you'll find individual checklists to work trough, please let me know if something is not clear or if you need any help.

[galessiorob]

Checking in! @GregaVrbancic , @xiaohk and @atanikan please let me know if you need anything on my behalf to get started on the review, thanks!

[GregaVrbancic]

Hi @galessiorob and @nedRad88,
I have made some progress on this review. I have opened several issues on SCALAR repository, so @nedRad88, please take a look at them. Also, please clarify Dihia Boulegane's and Albert Bifet's contributions to the paper since it is not observable from commit history (which can happen sometimes). Additionally, based on the commit history, should @gradoslovar be included as an co-author?

[nedRad88]

Hi @GregaVrbancic,
Thanks for the remarks.
Regarding authorship, the repository was not established back then when the project was started, so that is why Albert and Dihia don't appear in the commit history. If you check the second commit (https://github.com/nedRad88/SCALAR/tree/944fe1ae3eda7e3b2d481f81618dfd71d38cfa92) you can see that the project existed before creating the repository.
Regarding @gradoslovar, he is an external contributor, but yes we can add him as a co-author. Should I update the paper?
Thanks, I will come back to you soon to resolve all other the opened issues.

[galessiorob]

Thanks for getting started @GregaVrbancic!

@nedRad88 please add @gradoslovar as co-author or mention him as a contributor, thanks!

[xiaohk]

Hello @nedRad88. Very helpful and interesting work!

I have added some comments on the issues raised by @GregaVrbancic on SCALAR repo.

My main concern is that the installation instruction is not very easy to follow. It would be much easier for other users to set up their SCALAR if the instruction provides a list of all exact commands that they needs to run in order to set it up.

Other minor comments:

• Either on the README page or on the documentation, I suggest adding some text to discuss the problem and motivation for this software. I found the text on Big Data Challenge very helpful.
• It would be great to have some automated tests and community guidelines
• A typo on the README page: SCALAR let's users → lets

[whedon]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/2187671.2187677 is OK
- 10.1109/BigData47090.2019.9006357 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[galessiorob]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.4299807 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.4299807 is the archive.

[galessiorob]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[galessiorob]

@nedRad88 could you proofread this final version, please? 🙏

[nedRad88]

@galessiorob I did. I made couple of minor changes.

[galessiorob]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[galessiorob]

@nedRad88 mind solving the merge conflicts and merging the last PRs? After that, we can submit the final version. Thanks!

[nedRad88]

@galessiorob Done!

[galessiorob]

@whedon accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

👋 @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#1965

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#1965, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

[whedon]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/2187671.2187677 is OK
- 10.1109/BigData47090.2019.9006357 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[galessiorob]

@GregaVrbancic, @atanikan, @xiaohk thank you all so much for lending your time and expertise for this paper!

@nedRad88 a Chief Editor will do the final deposit and after that, your paper will be published on JOSS. Congrats! 🎉

[kyleniemeyer]

Hello @nedRad88, I'm the editor-in-chief on duty, doing some final checks.

In the Zenodo archive, you have one more person listed as an author than is on the paper. Can you clarify this? Normally we expect/require that the author lists match.

[nedRad88]

Hi @kyleniemeyer, I edited the zenodo upload. The authors should match now, and the one that was different is now labeled as a contributor. Is that ok now?

[nedRad88]

Thanks a lot @galessiorob @GregaVrbancic @xiaohk @atanikan for everything! It was a pleasure!

[kyleniemeyer]

@whedon accept deposit=true

[whedon]

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

[whedon]

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

[whedon]

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.02676 joss-papers#1967
1. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02676
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

[kyleniemeyer]

Congrats @nedRad88 on your article's publication in JOSS!

Many thanks to @GregaVrbancic, @atanikan, and @xiaohk for reviewing this, and @galessiorob for editing.

[whedon]

🎉🎉🎉 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.02676/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02676)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02676">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02676/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02676/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02676

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:

• Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss