[REVIEW]: Computer-Aided Generation of N-shift RWS

[whedon]

Submitting author: @benjaminbolling (Benjamin Edward Bolling)
Repository: https://github.com/benjaminbolling/RSW
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 1.0.0
Editor: @majensen
Reviewers: @ShantanuDash, @magedhelmy1
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7618915

⚠️ 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/b41d06d174b2f0692ed9ac06d745a895"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b41d06d174b2f0692ed9ac06d745a895/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b41d06d174b2f0692ed9ac06d745a895/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b41d06d174b2f0692ed9ac06d745a895)

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

@magedhelmy1 & @ShantanuDash, 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 @majensen 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 @magedhelmy1

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 (@benjaminbolling) 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 @ShantanuDash

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 (@benjaminbolling) 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?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @magedhelmy1, @ShantanuDash 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]

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[whedon]

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.03 s (286.6 files/s, 66267.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                           5             56            124           1806
Markdown                         3             71              0            223
TeX                              1              2              0             22
YAML                             1              0              0              8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            10            129            124           2059
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Statistical information for the repository '4b552e918940271eb0edc6dd' was
gathered on 2021/06/29.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
benjaminbolling                 32          4373           2387          100.00

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
benjaminbolling            1986           45.4          3.6                6.24

[whedon]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/s0166-218x(01)00258-x is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1201/9781584889304-33 may be a valid DOI for title: Python Language Reference

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

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

[benjaminbolling]

Dear @majensen, @magedhelmy1 and @ShantanuDash, I will update the document to provide a more clearer statement of need. Anything else you need from me to get going?

[magedhelmy1]

Dear @majensen, @magedhelmy1 and @ShantanuDash, I will update the document to provide a more clearer statement of need. Anything else you need from me to get going?

Thanks. I will take a look at it and come back with my comments

[benjaminbolling]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

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

[benjaminbolling]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

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

[benjaminbolling]

Ready for now. Thanks all!

[ShantanuDash]

@majensen could you resend the invitation again. I forgot to join.

[majensen]

@ShantanuDash no problem

[majensen]

@whedon re-invite @ShantanuDash as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, the reviewer has been re-invited.

@ShantanuDash please accept the invite by clicking this link: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

[whedon]

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

[whedon]

👋 @magedhelmy1, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

[benjaminbolling]

Issues commented, close if ready.

[magedhelmy1]

@whedon re-invite @magedhelmy1 as reviewer

[whedon]

I'm sorry @magedhelmy1, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do.

[magedhelmy1]

@majensen kindly reinvite me :)

[majensen]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[majensen]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1201/9781584889304-33 is OK
- 10.1007/s10951-020-00659-2 is OK
- 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601789 is OK
- 10.1023/B:JOSH.0000046076.75950.0b is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[majensen]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1201/9781584889304-33 is OK
- 10.1007/s10951-020-00659-2 is OK
- 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601789 is OK
- 10.1023/B:JOSH.0000046076.75950.0b is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#3957, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[arfon]

@majensen – I see a few unchecked boxes on this review still from reviewers. Is it fair to say the reviews are complete (and have recommended publication)?

[majensen]

Yes @arfon - they have been at it for almost two years and we have some reviewer fatigue. I am satisfied with the author's responsiveness during active review, and his work regarding functionality, documentation, and the addition of references. I think it will difficult to get the reviewers back around to dot the i's.

[arfon]

Got it. Thanks @majensen !

[arfon]

@benjaminbolling – I found a minor issue with your paper. Could you please merge this PR? benjaminbolling/RSW#10

[benjaminbolling]

Good catch, thanks!

[arfon]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1201/9781584889304-33 is OK
- 10.1007/s10951-020-00659-2 is OK
- 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601789 is OK
- 10.1023/B:JOSH.0000046076.75950.0b is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#3978, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[arfon]

@editorialbot accept

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

[editorialbot]

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

[editorialbot]

🚨🚨🚨 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.03431 joss-papers#3979
1. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03431
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...

[arfon]

@ShantanuDash, @magedhelmy1 – many thanks for your reviews here and to @majensen for editing this submission! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you ✨

@benjaminbolling – your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS ⚡🚀💥

[editorialbot]

🎉🎉🎉 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.03431/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03431)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03431">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03431/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03431/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03431

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The 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://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

[benjaminbolling]

Many thanks all, especially to my reviewers @magedhelmy1 and @ShantanuDash and editor @majensen. Sorry for the long duration and for causing the fatigue, I appreciate all the effort and help.