[REVIEW]: FURY: advanced scientific visualization

[whedon]

Submitting author: @Garyfallidis (Eleftherios Garyfallidis)
Repository: https://github.com/fury-gl/fury
Version: v0.7.1
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewer: @chrishavlin, @rougier, @phamvanvung
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5160945

⚠️ 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/bccf014ca783e9742e6c802dc485c4ce"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/bccf014ca783e9742e6c802dc485c4ce/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/bccf014ca783e9742e6c802dc485c4ce/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/bccf014ca783e9742e6c802dc485c4ce)

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

@chrishavlin & @rougier & @phamvanvung, 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 @danielskatz 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 @chrishavlin

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 (@Garyfallidis) 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: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states 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 @rougier

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 (@Garyfallidis) 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: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states 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 @phamvanvung

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 (@Garyfallidis) 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: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states 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? #3445

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @chrishavlin, @rougier, @phamvanvung 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]

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.30 s (770.1 files/s, 143351.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                         104           6585          10275          17224
reStructuredText                69           1142            672           2182
CSS                              3             22              5           1649
JSON                            16              1              0            576
GLSL                            11            158             78            370
Markdown                         7            120              0            270
YAML                             4             22             26            235
TeX                              1             27              0            230
HTML                             2              8             20            204
DOS Batch                        2             16              1            131
Bourne Shell                     3             18             17            101
PowerShell                       3             15             19             85
JavaScript                       2             12              1             68
make                             1              7              6             25
INI                              1              0              0              5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           229           8153          11120          23355
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Statistical information for the repository '5e5b5f8f0b2021594ed1cb6d' was
gathered on 2021/06/18.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Adam                             1             1              0            0.00
Alexandre Gauvin                 2            38             20            0.06
Aman Soni                        1             1              1            0.00
Amit Chaudhari                   7            94             45            0.15
Ariel Rokem                     48           519            725            1.33
Bago Amirbekian                 11           198            201            0.42
Bishakh Ghosh                    3            52             26            0.08
CHrlS98                         16          1032            602            1.74
ChenCheng0630                    7           202             62            0.28
Christopher Nguyen               2            23              3            0.03
David Reagan                    22           593            259            0.91
Devanshu Modi                    1            16             16            0.03
Eleftherios Garyfall           458         13607           8301           23.34
Enes Albay                       5            28             11            0.04
Etienne St-Onge                 12           638            393            1.10
Filipi Nascimento Si             6           289             37            0.35
Gauvin Alexandre                 1             3              0            0.00
Gottipati Gautam                 2             6              6            0.01
Gregory R. Lee                   5            34             21            0.06
Guillaume Favelier               4           160             13            0.18
Gurdit Siyan                     1            13              8            0.02
Ian Nimmo-Smith                  1             2              0            0.00
Javier Guaje                    26          3517           2064            5.94
Jhalak Gupta                     2           173            140            0.33
Jiri Borovec                     2             6             23            0.03
Jon Haitz Legarreta              6            34             35            0.07
Karan                           49          2496            404            3.09
Kesshi Jordan                   11           420            205            0.67
Kevin Sitek                     10            34             15            0.05
Lenix Lobo                      47          1027            536            1.66
Liam Donohue                     4           313             10            0.34
LoopThrough-i-j                  1           149              0            0.16
MIHIR                            1            86            165            0.27
Marc-Alexandre Côté             56          5087           3081            8.70
Marssis                          2            14             14            0.03
Matthew Brett                   17           223            588            0.86
Melina Raglin                   52          1291            263            1.66
Naman Bansal                    14            62             17            0.08
Nasim Anousheh                  20           554            282            0.89
Omar Ocegueda                   10           964            186            1.22
Pietro Astolfi                   1             1              1            0.00
Prashil                         26           379            246            0.67
Ranveer Aggarwal                72          3515            747            4.54
Sajag Swami                     12           693            371            1.13
Samuel St-Jean                   1            12             14            0.03
Sanjay Marreddi                  9           359            131            0.52
Saransh Jain                    16           420            105            0.56
Scott Trinkle                    2             2              4            0.01
Serge Koudoro                  443         16386           7287           25.22
Shahnawaz Ahmed                  4            11              7            0.02
Shreyas Bhujbal                 16           149             52            0.21
Soham Biswas                   172          5126           2056            7.65
Stefan van der Walt              5           263            162            0.45
SunTzunami                       6           232             10            0.26
Tingyi Wanyan                    5           128            128            0.27
Tushar                          15           328             55            0.41
Vivek Choudhary                 22           693            193            0.94
Yaroslav Halchenko               1             3              2            0.01
antrikshmisri                   11           142             35            0.19
devmessias                       8           149             28            0.19
ganimtron-10                     1             1              1            0.00
haran2001                        2            16             16            0.03
ibrahimAnis                     11           318            122            0.47
theaverageguy                    3             3              3            0.01
wasserth                         1             1              1            0.00

Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:

Author                     Rows      Stability          Age       % in comments
Aman Soni                     1          100.0          4.2                0.00
Amit Chaudhari               81           86.2          2.5                3.70
Ariel Rokem                   5            1.0         58.1                0.00
CHrlS98                     698           67.6          4.1               16.05
ChenCheng0630               159           78.7         15.2               17.61
David Reagan                246           41.5         31.5               16.26
Devanshu Modi                16          100.0         14.5                0.00
Eleftherios Garyfall       3852           28.3         47.1                7.66
Enes Albay                   17           60.7         36.8               11.76
Etienne St-Onge             265           41.5         52.5                7.92
Filipi Nascimento Si        247           85.5         15.5               17.00
Gauvin Alexandre             28          933.3         69.9                0.00
Gottipati Gautam              6          100.0         15.7              100.00
Gregory R. Lee                1            2.9         64.5                0.00
Guillaume Favelier           72           45.0         24.0                1.39
Gurdit Siyan                 13          100.0          2.2                0.00
Javier Guaje               2023           57.5         13.0                9.99
Jhalak Gupta                 12            6.9          2.2                0.00
Jiri Borovec                  1           16.7         38.8              100.00
Jon Haitz Legarreta          33           97.1         20.8                0.00
Karan                      1591           63.7         35.9               13.45
Kesshi Jordan               177           42.1         51.3               10.73
Kevin Sitek                   6           17.6         27.0               16.67
Lenix Lobo                  393           38.3         13.4               12.21
Liam Donohue                233           74.4         15.1                3.00
LoopThrough-i-j             149          100.0          1.1               15.44
MIHIR                        86          100.0          1.9               34.88
Marc-Alexandre Côté        3042           59.8         39.3               10.49
Marssis                      14          100.0         19.4                0.00
Melina Raglin               761           58.9         11.7               18.79
Naman Bansal                 47           75.8         14.0                6.38
Nasim Anousheh              270           48.7         13.0               24.07
Pietro Astolfi                1          100.0          9.6                0.00
Prashil                     111           29.3         28.5                2.70
Ranveer Aggarwal           1039           29.6         51.8               14.05
Sanjay Marreddi             227           63.2          7.4               24.23
Saransh Jain                280           66.7         15.7               24.64
Serge Koudoro             13088           79.9         25.6               12.85
Shreyas Bhujbal              98           65.8         15.1                3.06
Soham Biswas               3237           63.1         11.1               12.64
SunTzunami                  507          218.5          3.5               18.34
Tushar                      288           87.8          7.8               10.76
Vivek Choudhary             302           43.6         15.0               11.59
antrikshmisri               133           93.7          0.4                1.50
devmessias                  123           82.6          1.5                3.25
ganimtron-10                  1          100.0          4.4                0.00
haran2001                    16          100.0          3.5                0.00
ibrahimAnis                 168           52.8         14.7               10.71
wasserth                      1          100.0         36.2                0.00

[whedon]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.25080/majora-92bf1922-00a is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2007.55 is OK
- 10.25080/majora-7b98e3ed-00e is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2011.35 is OK
- 10.3389/fninf.2014.00008 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.1515/ntrev-2012-0043 is OK
- 10.1109/nmdc.2011.6155316 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

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

[danielskatz]

@chrishavlin, @rougier, and @phamvanvung - Thanks for agreeing to review this submission.
This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

Both reviewers have checklists at the top of this thread with the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

Please read the first couple of comments in this issue carefully, so that you can accept the invitation from JOSS and be able to check items, and so that you don't get overwhelmed with notifications from other activities in JOSS.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#3384 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if either of you require some more time. We can also use Whedon (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

[rougier]

Some update on my (stalled) review: I have a hard time installing vtk on OSX Catalina. Once solved, I'll be able to resume my review. [EDIT] Solved.

[phamvanvung]

Some update on my (stalled) review: I have a hard time installing vtk on OSX Catalina. Once solved, I'll be able to resume my review. [EDIT] Solved.

I am running macOS too (Big Sur) and tried installing the software (all three ways mentioned in the documentation: pip, conda, and development). They work well. It also downloads and installs vtk!=9.0.0,>=8.1.2 (from fury) automatically.

[rougier]

I've a hard time installing VTK on OSX Catalina, just for the record, the procedure using conda was:

conda config --set channel_priority strict
conda create -n vtk -c conda-forge python=3.7 numpy scipy pillow vtk
conda activate vtk
python -c "import vtk"

I had no trouble installing Fury following the instructions but the test failed with a segmentation fault (when testing picking). The output was rather scarce so it might be difficult to debug. But I managed to run some of the tutorials (I've not tested all of them). Overall it's a nice and much need package. Each example is a bit slow to start but I suspect this is because of VTK.

Concerning the paper, I've some minor comments:

• The paper is rather short which is ok for JOSS but in the meantime it's a bit frustrating for the reader. For example, you shortly compared with mayavi/glumpy/vispy but it's a bit difficult to compare since you do not provide much details. For example, why did you not re-use one of them (lack of support? some ingredient were missing, etc).
• You explain that FURY is interopable with lot of software but we don't have details. For example, what does it means for matplotlib? I think people (including me) woudl be very interested to have either one example or further explanations.
• In the list of authors, it's nice to recognize "FURY Contributors". I just wondered if you could add either a footnote or a dedicated section to list them but this would imply permission and may be too much trouble.
• For the DOI, I think some are missing (for example Numpy), could you fix them?

[phamvanvung]

I tested the software on:
macOS (Big Sur), conda 4.10.2 environment.
All the installation instructions work well.

There is an automated test, and I tried executing the test. Many cases showed "PASSED" status, but there are still some errors shown (this might be due to the version compatibility from my environment):
E.g.:
fury/tests/test_pick.py::test_picking_manager Fatal Python error: Segmentation fault

The statement of need is clear from the Software paper (PDF). However, though I can figure out the statement of needs from the Documentation page, it is unclear for me (as required from the checklist).

Given the limitation of the number of pages, the Software paper does a good job stating its aims, architectures, and quick pointers to comparable and commonly used software packages. They also provide the main differences between these similar packages and FURY. Interested readers can refer to these pointers for further comparisons if needed.

Regarding the references:

1. It was hard for me to find the source for the "Bullet physics library" reference. Please add "Available at: http://www.bulletphysics.org," if possible.
2. Here is the DOI for the "Array programming with NumPy" reference: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2
3. Here is the DOI for the "Advancing Education and Research in Nanotechnology" reference: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2008.120
4. Similarly, the authors can try and search for the DOIs of the missing references.

All in all, I have positive feelings regarding the usability of this software and highly support its use.

[danielskatz]

Thanks @phamvanvung - as much as possible, can you edit your comment above to make it clear where you think something needs to be fixed/changed before publication, and where things are suggested improvements that don't block you from checking off review criteria? Given that I think you've checked off all the review criteria, I assume none of your comments are blockers, correct?

And it any items are blockers, it you want to create issues in the source repository, you could (but don't have to).

[whedon]

👋 @rougier, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

[whedon]

👋 @chrishavlin, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

[phamvanvung]

Thanks @phamvanvung - as much as possible, can you edit your comment above to make it clear where you think something needs to be fixed/changed before publication, and where things are suggested improvements that don't block you from checking off review criteria? Given that I think you've checked off all the review criteria, I assume none of your comments are blockers, correct?

And it any items are blockers, it you want to create issues in the source repository, you could (but don't have to).

Hi,
For me, the automated test issue is minor and might due to version differences in my environment.
I now changed the references to be a blocker and I think it should be easy and quick for the authors to fix.

[danielskatz]

@phamvanvung - Can you be specific (in the copy of the issue that you will create in https://github.com/fury-gl/fury) about what you think needs to be changed?

[rougier]

I'm waiting for author's feedback to update my review.

[danielskatz]

I'm waiting for author's feedback to update my review.

👋 @Garyfallidis ☝️

[Garyfallidis]

Thank you all greatly for your reviews. Will get back to you at the soonest possible.

[Garyfallidis]

Done and merged. Apologies we missed that.

[Garyfallidis]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

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

[danielskatz]

@whedon recommend-accept

[whedon]

No archive DOI set. Exiting...

[danielskatz]

@Garyfallidis - At this point could you:

• Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here.
• Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g., figshare, an institutional repository)
• Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) 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 DOI of the archived version here.

I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

[Garyfallidis]

Sounds good. Working on the different steps.

[danielskatz]

@Garyfallidis - any update on this?

[danielskatz]

@Garyfallidis - just checking again - this is really almost done and it would be nice to publish it

[Garyfallidis]

We are releasing a new version today (or tomorrow) @danielskatz .

[Garyfallidis]

Hello @danielskatz, the release is tagged as shown here https://github.com/fury-gl/fury/tree/v0.7.1
The version of the release is 0.7.1
Here is the Zenodo link with the DOI https://zenodo.org/record/5160945
The metadata were updated as suggested with title, author names and ORCIDS.
The DOI is 10.5281/zenodo.5160945.
Let us know if you need anything else.

[danielskatz]

@whedon set v0.7.1 as version

[whedon]

OK. v0.7.1 is the version.

[danielskatz]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.5160945 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.5160945 is the archive.

[danielskatz]

@whedon recommend-accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.25080/majora-7b98e3ed-00e is OK
- 10.3389/fninf.2014.00008 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2008.120 is OK
- 10.25080/majora-92bf1922-00a is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2011.35 is OK
- 10.1109/VISUAL.1996.567752 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1515/ntrev-2012-0043 is OK
- 10.1109/nmdc.2011.6155316 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

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

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#2493

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#2493, 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]

@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.03384 joss-papers#2494
1. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03384
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...

[danielskatz]

Congratulations to @Garyfallidis (Eleftherios Garyfallidis) and co-authors!!

And thanks to @chrishavlin, @rougier, and @phamvanvung for reviewing!

[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.03384/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03384)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03384">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03384/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03384/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03384

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

[Garyfallidis]

Thank you @chrishavlin, @rougier, and @phamvanvung for your positive reviews! Thank you @danielskatz for pushing the
process forward! Stay tuned for the upcoming FURY features and demos !