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

[PRE REVIEW]: SenAOReFoc: A Closed-Loop Sensorbased Adaptive Optics and Remote Focusing Control Software #4023

Closed
whedon opened this issue Dec 21, 2021 · 41 comments

Comments

@whedon
Copy link

whedon commented Dec 21, 2021

Submitting author: @jiahecui (Jiahe Cui)
Repository: https://github.com/jiahecui/SenAOReFoc
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @diehlpk
Reviewers: @abhilash12iec002 , @JackTyson, @alvesjnr
Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

⚠️ 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/c0c5c8e06b379c4ac5374b261241068d"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c0c5c8e06b379c4ac5374b261241068d/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c0c5c8e06b379c4ac5374b261241068d/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c0c5c8e06b379c4ac5374b261241068d)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @jiahecui. Currently, there isn't an JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

The author's suggestion for the handling editor is @jni.

@jiahecui if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands
@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Dec 21, 2021

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

⚠️ 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.

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 Dec 21, 2021

Wordcount for paper.md is 1615

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Dec 21, 2021

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/lsa.2014.46 is OK
- 10.1038/nn.4358 is OK
- 10.1364/OE.401117 is OK
- 10.1364/OE.27.031316 is OK
- 10.1364/OE.25.004368 is OK
- 10.1364/OE.26.001655 is OK
- 10.1364/OE.23.026208 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3885508 is OK
- 10.1364/OE.442025 is OK
- 10.1364/BOE.8.004369 is OK
- 10.1364/AOPT.2005.AThB4 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08524.x is OK
- 10.1364/OL.26.000746 is OK
- 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181ff9a8b is OK
- 10.1098/rsta.2007.0013 is OK
- 10.1038/nmeth.4218 is OK
- 10.3928/1081-597X-20010901-13 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1364/boda.2021.dth2a.2 may be a valid DOI for title: Remote-Focussing for Volumetric Imaging in a Contactless and Label-Free Neurosurgical Microscope
- 10.1117/12.2054470 may be a valid DOI for title: Object-oriented Matlab adaptive optics toolbox
- 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.000305 may be a valid DOI for title: Adaptive optics for astronomy: principles, performance, and applications

INVALID DOIs

- None

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Dec 21, 2021

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.24 s (210.3 files/s, 81868.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          43           3134           4702           8803
Qt                               2              0              0           1474
Markdown                         2            165              0            763
TeX                              1             21              0            241
YAML                             1             12              0             82
JSON                             1              0              0             70
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            50           3332           4702          11433
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Statistical information for the repository 'cf2651fd48f43136d981d7e9' was
gathered on 2021/12/21.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Jiahe Cui                      203       1380249        1369584           99.68
jiahecui                        55          7430           1470            0.32

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
Jiahe Cui                 16639            1.2          9.7               10.30

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Dec 21, 2021

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

@jiahecui
Copy link

Suggestion for potential reviewers: caldarolamartin, jonatanalvelid

@arfon
Copy link
Member

arfon commented Dec 29, 2021

👋 @jiahecui – many thanks for your submission to JOSS. While I look for an editor to handle your submission if you want to fix the DOIs (noting that Whedon's suggestions are not always right), you can, then use the following commands (one at a time, as the first line of a new comment) to regenerate the PDF and check the references.

@whedon generate pdf
@whedon check references

@arfon
Copy link
Member

arfon commented Dec 29, 2021

@whedon invite @jni as editor

👋 @jni – would you be able to edit this submission for JOSS? Many thanks!

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Dec 29, 2021

@jni has been invited to edit this submission.

@jiahecui
Copy link

jiahecui commented Jan 4, 2022

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Jan 4, 2022

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

@jiahecui
Copy link

jiahecui commented Jan 4, 2022

@whedon check references

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Jan 4, 2022

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/lsa.2014.46 is OK
- 10.1038/nn.4358 is OK
- 10.1364/OE.401117 is OK
- 10.1364/OE.27.031316 is OK
- 10.1364/OE.25.004368 is OK
- 10.1364/OE.26.001655 is OK
- 10.1364/OE.23.026208 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3885508 is OK
- 10.1364/boda.2021.dth2a.2 is OK
- 10.1364/OE.442025 is OK
- 10.1364/BOE.8.004369 is OK
- 10.1364/AOPT.2005.AThB4 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08524.x is OK
- 10.1117/12.2054470 is OK
- 10.1364/OL.26.000746 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.000305 is OK
- 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181ff9a8b is OK
- 10.1098/rsta.2007.0013 is OK
- 10.1038/nmeth.4218 is OK
- 10.3928/1081-597X-20010901-13 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

@kthyng
Copy link

kthyng commented Jan 6, 2022

@whedon assign @diehlpk as editor

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Jan 6, 2022

OK, the editor is @diehlpk

@diehlpk
Copy link
Member

diehlpk commented Jan 7, 2022

@jiahecui would be great if you could recommend some reviewers?

@jiahecui
Copy link

jiahecui commented Jan 7, 2022

Hello and thank you for agreeing to be editor! Suggestion for potential reviewers: caldarolamartin, jonatanalvelid.

@diehlpk
Copy link
Member

diehlpk commented Jan 7, 2022

Hi @caldarolamartin and @jonatanalvelid would you be interested in reviewing this paper?

@diehlpk
Copy link
Member

diehlpk commented Jan 10, 2022

Hi @dvanic or @sfuxy or @jodemaey or @abhilash12iec002 would you be interested in reviewing this paper?

@dvanic
Copy link

dvanic commented Jan 10, 2022

@diehlpk: sorry, it's too far outside my area of expertise 😓

@jonatanalvelid
Copy link

Hi @diehlpk, thank you for considering me, but I am unfortunately not available to review currently.
I hope I will be considered again in the future and will happily review then, and thanks for your understanding.

Best,
Jonatan

@abhilash12iec002
Copy link

abhilash12iec002 commented Jan 11, 2022 via email

@jodemaey
Copy link

Hi,

Same as @dvanic comment for me, it is way outside of my area of expertise.

Sorry,

Jonathan

@diehlpk
Copy link
Member

diehlpk commented Jan 11, 2022

@whedon assign @abhilash12iec002 as reviewer

@whedon whedon assigned abhilash12iec002 and unassigned diehlpk Jan 11, 2022
@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Jan 11, 2022

OK, @abhilash12iec002 is now a reviewer

@diehlpk
Copy link
Member

diehlpk commented Jan 19, 2022

@jiahecui would be great if you could recommend more reviewers?

@abhilash12iec002
Copy link

@jiahecui Please find my comments below;
I have read the complete article, “SenAOReFoc: A Closed-Loop Sensorbased Adaptive Optics and Remote Focusing Control Software” with full consideration. The title is short and sufficient. The summary part is nicely written in a very concise way. In the statement of need section, there exists a scope of improvement. For example; “The functionality of the software has also been tested on different operating systems (Windows/macOS/Linux) for sake of generality.” For this line, a concluding remark on the performance on each platform must be added. Also, the lines from 71 to 73 must be explained in detail. I think these two points are very crucial points and a good set of motivation for this software. I am very much satisfied with the Example usage section. Apart from reading the article, I have spent a good chunk of time using the SenAOReFoc package in the due course of this review. I am satisfied with the functionality of this software.

Overall, the submitted manuscript is well written, and ably demonstrates the community requirement for this open-source tool. I recommend publication after incorporating the suggestions discussed above.

@diehlpk
Copy link
Member

diehlpk commented Jan 19, 2022

@whedon start review

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Jan 19, 2022

OK, I've started the review over in #4075.

@whedon whedon closed this as completed Jan 19, 2022
@diehlpk
Copy link
Member

diehlpk commented Jan 19, 2022

@abhilash12iec002 That was quick. I started the review in #4075, and please check the checkboxes there.

@jiahecui
Copy link

jiahecui commented Jan 20, 2022

@diehlpk Sure no problem, I suggest JackTyson, caldarolamartin, alvesjnr, aquilesC. Thank you very much!

@jiahecui
Copy link

@jiahecui Please find my comments below; I have read the complete article, “SenAOReFoc: A Closed-Loop Sensorbased Adaptive Optics and Remote Focusing Control Software” with full consideration. The title is short and sufficient. The summary part is nicely written in a very concise way. In the statement of need section, there exists a scope of improvement. For example; “The functionality of the software has also been tested on different operating systems (Windows/macOS/Linux) for sake of generality.” For this line, a concluding remark on the performance on each platform must be added. Also, the lines from 71 to 73 must be explained in detail. I think these two points are very crucial points and a good set of motivation for this software. I am very much satisfied with the Example usage section. Apart from reading the article, I have spent a good chunk of time using the SenAOReFoc package in the due course of this review. I am satisfied with the functionality of this software.

Overall, the submitted manuscript is well written, and ably demonstrates the community requirement for this open-source tool. I recommend publication after incorporating the suggestions discussed above.

@abhilash12iec002 Thank you very much for the thorough review and detailed comments. Your time is greatly appreciated! We will make the revisions as soon as possible!

@abhilash12iec002
Copy link

@jiahecui Thanks and Good luck!

@diehlpk
Copy link
Member

diehlpk commented Jan 20, 2022

Hi @JackTyson, @caldarolamartin, @alvesjnr, @aquilesC would you be interested in reviewing this paper?

@aquilesC
Copy link

Thanks for the invite! I am wrapping up another review here on JOSS and with zero bandwidth to take up another one.

@JackTyson
Copy link

Hi @diehlpk, yes, this area sits within my expertise and I would be happy to review.

@diehlpk
Copy link
Member

diehlpk commented Jan 20, 2022

@whedon add @JackTyson as reviewer

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Jan 20, 2022

OK, @JackTyson is now a reviewer

@alvesjnr
Copy link

alvesjnr commented Jan 20, 2022 via email

@diehlpk
Copy link
Member

diehlpk commented Jan 21, 2022

@whedon add @alvesjnr as reviewer

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Jan 21, 2022

OK, @alvesjnr is now a reviewer

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests