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]: eyecite: A tool for parsing legal citations #3617

Closed
40 tasks done
whedon opened this issue Aug 16, 2021 · 82 comments
Closed
40 tasks done

[REVIEW]: eyecite: A tool for parsing legal citations #3617

whedon opened this issue Aug 16, 2021 · 82 comments
Assignees
Labels
accepted published Papers published in JOSS Python recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. review

Comments

@whedon
Copy link

whedon commented Aug 16, 2021

Submitting author: @mattdahl (Matthew Dahl)
Repository: https://github.com/freelawproject/eyecite
Version: v2.3.0
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewer: @cmaimone, @step21
Archive: 10.7910/DVN/STVKTE

⚠️ 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

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/afde740e2dd790fb9ac7c352add9c764"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/afde740e2dd790fb9ac7c352add9c764/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/afde740e2dd790fb9ac7c352add9c764/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/afde740e2dd790fb9ac7c352add9c764)

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

@cmaimone & @step21, 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 @cmaimone

✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨

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 (@mattdahl) 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 @step21

✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨

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 (@mattdahl) 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
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Aug 16, 2021

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @cmaimone, @step21 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:

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
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Aug 16, 2021

PDF failed to compile for issue #3617 with the following error:

 Can't find any papers to compile :-(

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Aug 16, 2021

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.07 s (412.7 files/s, 75808.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          18            478           1039           2564
reStructuredText                 1            147              7            363
YAML                             5             29              3            150
Markdown                         2             29              0             72
TOML                             1             10              5             64
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            27            693           1054           3213
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Statistical information for the repository '2794f5f9e77aab517ba46179' was
gathered on 2021/08/16.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Faiz Surani                      5           195             30            1.87
Jack Cushman                    49          5495           3728           76.48
Matt Dahl                       12          2229             80           19.15
Michael Lissner                 14            48            127            1.45
Mike Lissner                     1            18              0            0.15
vvilliam                         8            83             27            0.91

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
Faiz Surani                 130           66.7          0.6               20.00
Jack Cushman               3222           58.6          1.8               16.36
Matt Dahl                   703           31.5          3.3               29.30
Michael Lissner              21           43.8          3.7                4.76
vvilliam                      5            6.0          4.6                0.00

@danielskatz
Copy link

@whedon check references in branch joss-paper

@danielskatz
Copy link

@whedon check references from branch joss-paper

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Aug 16, 2021

Attempting to check references... from custom branch joss-paper

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Aug 16, 2021

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1093/pan/mpm011 may be a valid DOI for title: Network Analysis and the Law: Measuring the Legal Importance of Precedents at the U.S. Supreme Court
- 10.1111/jels.12012 may be a valid DOI for title: The Citation and Depreciation of U.S. Supreme Court Precedent
- 10.2307/449284 may be a valid DOI for title: Measuring Legal Change: The Reliability and Validity of Shepard’s Citations
- 10.1007/s10506-018-9217-1 may be a valid DOI for title: Automatic Semantic Edge Labeling over Legal Citation Graphs
- 10.1145/3462757.3466066 may be a valid DOI for title: Context-Aware Legal Citation Recommendation Using Deep Learning
- 10.1007/s10506-018-9224-2 may be a valid DOI for title: Bending the Law: Geometric Tools for Quantifying Influence in the Multinetwork of Legal Opinions

INVALID DOIs

- None

@danielskatz
Copy link

@whedon generate pdf from branch joss-paper

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Aug 16, 2021

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch joss-paper. Reticulating splines etc...

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Aug 16, 2021

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

@danielskatz
Copy link

@mattdahl - as we get started, you could work on the possibly missing DOIs that whedon suggests, but note that some may be incorrect. Please feel free to make changes to your .bib file, then use the command @whedon check references from branch joss-paper to check again, and the command @whedon generate pdf from branch joss-paper when the references are right to make a new PDF. Whedon commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

@danielskatz
Copy link

@cmaimone and @step21 - 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#3617 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.

Please feel free to ping me (@danielskatz) if you have any questions/concerns.

@step21
Copy link

step21 commented Aug 19, 2021

@danielskatz I confirmed basic functionality so far. The paper does say 'high performance' extraction but otherwise does not make any specific claims. Thus, I am not sure how to evaluate performance or functionality at scale as I currently do not have a dataset ready for this. Though at least I would look at their tests, which is when I happened upon the mentioned issue. I can later do this on a linux machine.

@danielskatz
Copy link

danielskatz commented Aug 19, 2021

@step21 - as we say in the checklist, if there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.) I think it's therefore up to you to decide if you are ok with a vague "high performance" statement, to ask the submitter to explain, or to disagree.

@mattdahl
Copy link

@whedon check references from branch joss-paper

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Aug 22, 2021

Attempting to check references... from custom branch joss-paper

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Aug 22, 2021

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1093/pan/mpm011 is OK
- 10.1016/j.socnet.2007.05.001 is OK
- 10.1093/pan/mps019 is OK
- 10.1111/jels.12012 is OK
- 10.2307/449284 is OK
- 10.1007/s10506-018-9217-1 is OK
- 10.1145/3462757.3466066 is OK
- 10.1007/s10506-020-09261-5 is OK
- 10.1007/s10506-018-9224-2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

@mattdahl
Copy link

@whedon generate pdf from branch joss-paper

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Aug 22, 2021

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch joss-paper. Reticulating splines etc...

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Aug 22, 2021

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

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Aug 30, 2021

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

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Aug 30, 2021

👋 @step21, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

@danielskatz
Copy link

👋 @cmaimone, @step21 - we're now about 3 weeks into the process. How is it going? I see some progress by @step21, but no checked items from @cmaimone

@mattdahl
Copy link

mattdahl commented Oct 7, 2021

Hi @danielskatz, we have reviewed the paper and have no further changes to make. We've also tagged the latest version of the code as v2.3.0 and archived it in the Harvard Dataverse here: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/MFMFQY

Let me know what you need from us next!

@danielskatz
Copy link

@mattdahl - We expect the archival deposit to be of the full repository, not just selected files. For example, the tutorial is not in the repository. The easiest way to do this is to clone the repository somewhere, then tar and gzip it, or just deposit the full cloned repository as a set of files in directories.

@danielskatz
Copy link

@whedon set v2.3.0 as version

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Oct 7, 2021

OK. v2.3.0 is the version.

@danielskatz
Copy link

sorry, I also now realize that the tar.gz file is already stored by github as well - in this case, in https://github.com/freelawproject/eyecite/archive/refs/tags/v2.3.0.tar.gz This is what we want to be archived.

@mattdahl
Copy link

mattdahl commented Oct 7, 2021

Sorry, my bad, I archived the version of the packaged software that we distribute via PyPi (https://pypi.org/project/eyecite/#files). Just to be clear, you want a full snapshot of the repo itself instead, which would include all the dotfiles, GitHub action scripts, etc.? Thanks.

@danielskatz
Copy link

correct

@mattdahl
Copy link

mattdahl commented Oct 8, 2021

Thanks, it should be fixed now. Please use this DOI instead: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/STVKTE

@danielskatz
Copy link

@mattdahl - I'll go ahead with this, but it's not really what we would prefer, as it's lost the directory structure of the repository, so any links across directories likely won't work.

@danielskatz
Copy link

@whedon set 10.7910/DVN/STVKTE as archive

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Oct 8, 2021

OK. 10.7910/DVN/STVKTE is the archive.

@danielskatz
Copy link

@whedon recommend-accept

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Oct 8, 2021

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

@whedon whedon added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Oct 8, 2021
@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Oct 8, 2021

PDF failed to compile for issue #3617 with the following error:

 Can't find any papers to compile :-(

@danielskatz
Copy link

@whedon recommend-accept from branch joss-paper

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Oct 8, 2021

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Oct 8, 2021

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1093/pan/mpm011 is OK
- 10.1016/j.socnet.2007.05.001 is OK
- 10.1093/pan/mps019 is OK
- 10.1111/jels.12012 is OK
- 10.2307/449284 is OK
- 10.1007/s10506-018-9217-1 is OK
- 10.1145/3462757.3466066 is OK
- 10.1007/s10506-020-09261-5 is OK
- 10.1007/s10506-018-9224-2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Oct 8, 2021

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

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#2657

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#2657, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true from branch joss-paper 

@danielskatz
Copy link

@whedon accept deposit=true from branch joss-paper

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Oct 8, 2021

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

@whedon whedon added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Oct 8, 2021
@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Oct 8, 2021

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Oct 8, 2021

🚨🚨🚨 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 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.03617 joss-papers#2658
  2. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03617
  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
Copy link

Congratulations to @mattdahl (Matthew Dahl) and co-authors!!

And thanks to @cmaimone and @step21 for reviewing!
We couldn't do this without you

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Oct 8, 2021

🎉🎉🎉 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.03617/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03617)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03617">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03617/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03617/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03617

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:

@mattdahl
Copy link

mattdahl commented Oct 8, 2021

@danielskatz Thank you for serving as editor and guiding this through the review process!

@mattdahl - I'll go ahead with this, but it's not really what we would prefer, as it's lost the directory structure of the repository, so any links across directories likely won't work.

Just FYI, if you click on the "tree" view instead of the "table" view, you'll see that the directory structure is preserved. The relative file paths are also visible below the title of each file in the "table" view.

@danielskatz
Copy link

Just FYI, if you click on the "tree" view instead of the "table" view, you'll see that the directory structure is preserved. The relative file paths are also visible below the title of each file in the "table" view.

great!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
accepted published Papers published in JOSS Python recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. review
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants