[REVIEW]: OPSDN: an enhanced SDN simulation framework for OPNET Modeler

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @ZacharyJia (Zequn Jia)
Repository: https://github.com/ZacharyJia/opsdn
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.2.2.
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewers: @Qingfengmufeng, @pradeeban
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7708397

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/888bd72686dac709bec0e4e2b57a1d18"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/888bd72686dac709bec0e4e2b57a1d18/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/888bd72686dac709bec0e4e2b57a1d18/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/888bd72686dac709bec0e4e2b57a1d18)

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

@Qingfengmufeng & @pausz, 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 @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 ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @Qingfengmufeng

📝 Checklist for @pausz

📝 Checklist for @pradeeban

[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=0.09 s (539.6 files/s, 64073.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C                                2            116            200           2950
C++                             11            216            115            635
Python                          13            153             73            536
Markdown                         7             47              0            152
C/C++ Header                     6             42              8            107
HTML                             1              6              0             79
TeX                              1              2              0             28
YAML                             1              1              4             18
Cython                           1              8              8             15
CMake                            1              3              0             11
DOS Batch                        2              0              0              3
JavaScript                       1              4             38              3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            47            598            446           4537
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 700

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/1868447.1868466 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[danielskatz]

👋 @Qingfengmufeng and @pausz - 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.

As you can see above, you each should use the command @editorialbot generate my checklist to create your review checklist. @editorialbot commands need to be the first thing in a new comment.

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.

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#4815 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 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 (@danielskatz) if you have any questions/concerns.

[pausz]

Review checklist for @pausz

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/ZacharyJia/opsdn?
• 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 (@ZacharyJia) 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?

[danielskatz]

👋 @Qingfengmufeng - Can you please generate your checklist?

To do so, use the command @editorialbot generate my checklist to create your review checklist. @editorialbot commands need to be the first thing in a new comment.

[danielskatz]

👋 @pausz - thanks for getting started. I wanted to check in, after a couple of weeks, and see how things are going.

[Qingfengmufeng]

@editorialbot generate my checklist

[editorialbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

[Qingfengmufeng]

@editorialbot

[editorialbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot generate my checklist

@Qingfengmufeng - can you try that again? enter @editorialbot generate my checklist as a new comment here

[Qingfengmufeng]

Review checklist for @Qingfengmufeng

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/ZacharyJia/opsdn?
• 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 (@ZacharyJia) 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?

[Qingfengmufeng]

OK ***@***.*** From: Daniel S. Katz Date: 2022-10-25 20:20 To: openjournals/joss-reviews CC: Qingfengmufeng; Mention Subject: Re: [openjournals/joss-reviews] [REVIEW]: OPSDN: an enhanced SDN simulation framework for OPNET Modeler (Issue #4815) @editorialbot generate my checklist @Qingfengmufeng - can you try that again? enter @editorialbot generate my checklist as a new comment here — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[danielskatz]

👋 @pausz - How are things are going? When you do think you will be able to start on your review items?

[pausz]

@danielskatz Apologies. My workstation cooling system failed and had a down time of a couple of weeks, which delayed me in getting this done. Will finish within this week.

[pausz]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @pausz, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

[pausz]

@danielskatz I've completed my checklist-based review. Sorry again for the delay. I can elaborate more on the items that are not checked if needed.

[danielskatz]

👋 @pausz - Thanks! and yes, please do elaborate. If you want, you can submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#4815 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, perhaps with one comment for each criteria where you feel that something else is needed. Remember that the goal of this review is to tell the authors what you think they need to so that you could check off the all the criteria.

[danielskatz]

👋 @pausz - are you able to elaborate more?

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot set v0.2.2. as version

[editorialbot]

Done! version is now v0.2.2.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7708397 as archive

[editorialbot]

Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7708397

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

After this, I'll proofread the generated version, and get back to you if anything else is needed

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/1868447.1868466 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👋 @openjournals/csism-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#4033, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[danielskatz]

@ZacharyJia - I've got some changes to suggest in ZacharyJia/opsdn#8 - please merge this, or let me know what you disagree with, then we can proceed to acceptance and publication

[ZacharyJia]

@ZacharyJia - I've got some changes to suggest in ZacharyJia/opsdn#8 - please merge this, or let me know what you disagree with, then we can proceed to acceptance and publication

Really appreciate your suggestions, and I have merged them.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

final check

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/1868447.1868466 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👋 @openjournals/csism-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#4034, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[danielskatz]

@ZacharyJia - sorry, I missed a space before - please merge ZacharyJia/opsdn#9 and then we should be ready to accept.

[ZacharyJia]

@ZacharyJia - sorry, I missed a space before - please merge ZacharyJia/opsdn#9 and then we should be ready to accept.

Done, thank you.

[danielskatz]

@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.04815 joss-papers#4035
1. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04815
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 @ZacharyJia (Zequn Jia) and co-authors!!

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

[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.04815/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04815)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04815">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04815/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04815/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04815

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

[ZacharyJia]

Congratulations to @ZacharyJia (Zequn Jia) and co-authors!!

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

@danielskatz - Thank you for your work, it's really great to have OPSDN published in JOSS!
@Qingfengmufeng and @pradeeban - Thanks for your help and suggestions!

[pradeeban]

Congratulations @ZacharyJia, and thank you for your contributions!