[REVIEW]: Spafe: Simplified python audio features extraction

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @SuperKogito (Ayoub Malek)
Repository: https://github.com/SuperKogito/spafe
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.3.1
Editor: @faroit
Reviewers: @hadware, @hbredin
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7533946

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/dd1872c99f05b308d805eb56bd34d401"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/dd1872c99f05b308d805eb56bd34d401/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/dd1872c99f05b308d805eb56bd34d401/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/dd1872c99f05b308d805eb56bd34d401)

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

@hadware & @hbredin, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @faroit 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 ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @hadware

📝 Checklist for @hbredin

[editorialbot]

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

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.11 s (962.3 files/s, 103537.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          54           1277           3763           3927
XML                              2              0              2           1232
Markdown                         9            168              0            448
CSS                              1             45             33            172
TeX                              1             10              0            143
HTML                             5             11              3             90
reStructuredText                30             80            155             86
YAML                             2              8              4             58
make                             2              9             18             42
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
JSON                             2              0              0             13
INI                              1              0              0              3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           110           1616           3979           6240
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 936

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00749 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.3607820 is OK
- 10.1186/s13634-019-0632-6 is OK
- 10.1016/j.dsp.2020.102795 is OK
- 10.1121/1.1458024 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[faroit]

👋🏼 @SuperKogito, @hadware, @hbredin this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

As a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering

@editorialbot generate my checklist

as the top of a new comment in this thread.

These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

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, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention #4739 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 any of you require some more time. We can also use EditorialBot (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 (@faroit) if you have any questions/concerns.

[editorialbot]

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

[hadware]

Review checklist for @hadware

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 https://github.com/SuperKogito/spafe?
• 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 (@SuperKogito) 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
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• 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?

[faroit]

@hadware @hbredin can you update us on the status on your reviews?

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks (~one more week to go). Please let me know if any of you require some more time.

[hbredin]

As mentioned here, I cannot start working on this review before the end of September.

I apologize if my initial statement was not clear enough...

[faroit]

@hbredin yes, Sorry i forgot your schedule. No worries. That's all fine. Thanks a lot again

[hadware]

I started reading the code and the paper, but I'm currently on holidays. I'll start giving some feedback in the first week of october as well.

[hbredin]

Review checklist for @hbredin

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 https://github.com/SuperKogito/spafe?
• 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 (@SuperKogito) 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
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• 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?

[faroit]

@SuperKogito please update us on the status of the submission with respect to the two issues opened in spafe above. Tell us if you need more time.

[SuperKogito]

@faroit I apologize to you and to the two reviewers for my radio silence in the last couple of weeks. Unfortunately, I have been very busy and couldn't find time to provide meaningful responses to the opened issues (which I appreciate). I intend to address these issues and the PR thoroughly at the latest this weekend. Thank you for understanding and being patient <3 .

[faroit]

@SuperKogito can you update us on the submission status? Let us know if you need more time or if we should pause the review

[SuperKogito]

Hello @faroit,
I implemented the changes requested in most of the issues and currently waiting for @hadware, who is aware of the changes and mentioned that he will review them asap. There is only one last issue ( no comparison with librosa); that I will deal with this weekend.
Thank you for your patience and efforts.

[faroit]

@SuperKogito Thanks for the update! 👍

[faroit]

@hadware @SuperKogito can you update us on the status of SuperKogito/spafe#46?

[faroit]

@hbredin can you update us on the status of your review? Is there still a blocking issue?

[SuperKogito]

Unfortunately, @hadware seems to be very busy and I am still waiting for his review / merge of my latest chances.

[editorialbot]

Done! Archive is now 0.5281/zenodo.7533946

[faroit]

@editorialbot set v0.3.1 as version

[editorialbot]

Done! version is now v0.3.1

[faroit]

@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

- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00749 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-7b98e3ed-003 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.3607820 is OK
- 10.1186/s13634-019-0632-6 is OK
- 10.1016/j.dsp.2020.102795 is OK
- 10.1121/1.1458024 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#3872, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[SuperKogito]

@faroit isn't the DOI missing the first digit? it is supposed to be 10.5281/zenodo.7533946 and not 0.5281/zenodo.7533946.

[faroit]

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7533946 as archive

[editorialbot]

Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7533946

[faroit]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[oliviaguest]

@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

- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00749 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-7b98e3ed-003 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.3607820 is OK
- 10.1186/s13634-019-0632-6 is OK
- 10.1016/j.dsp.2020.102795 is OK
- 10.1121/1.1458024 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[oliviaguest]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[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#3907, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[editorialbot]

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

[oliviaguest]

@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.04739 joss-papers#3908
1. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04739
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...

[oliviaguest]

Sorry for being delayed, I am ill. Congratulations! 🥳

[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.04739/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04739)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04739">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04739/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04739/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04739

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://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss