[REVIEW]: HiPart: Hierarchical divisive clustering toolbox #5024

editorialbot · 2022-12-21T17:53:38Z

Submitting author: @panagiotisanagnostou (Panagiotis Anagnostou)
Repository: https://github.com/panagiotisanagnostou/HiPart
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper
Version: v0.3.1
Editor: @jbytecode
Reviewers: @AP6YC, @jjerphan
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7814113

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1c40d7fca511858540163a9a034a08e3"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1c40d7fca511858540163a9a034a08e3/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1c40d7fca511858540163a9a034a08e3/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1c40d7fca511858540163a9a034a08e3)

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

@AP6YC & @jjerphan, 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 @jbytecode 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 @jjerphan

📝 Checklist for @AP6YC

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

editorialbot · 2022-12-21T17:53:39Z

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 · 2022-12-21T17:53:44Z

Checking the BibTeX entries failed with the following error:

Failed to parse BibTeX entry: cite-key missing

editorialbot · 2022-12-21T17:53:44Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.13 s (231.1 files/s, 59013.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          14           1060           1799           3390
CSS                              1             83             67            370
Markdown                         3            105              0            338
TeX                              1             37              0            332
YAML                             4             21             21            118
reStructuredText                 3             26             36             34
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
JSON                             1              1              0             16
make                             1              4              7              9
TOML                             1              0              0              6
INI                              1              0              0              2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            31           1345           1931           4641
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot · 2022-12-21T17:53:46Z

Wordcount for paper.md is 1727

editorialbot · 2022-12-21T17:54:59Z

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

jjerphan · 2022-12-21T17:56:00Z

Review checklist for @jjerphan

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/panagiotisanagnostou/HiPart?
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 (@panagiotisanagnostou) 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?

jbytecode · 2022-12-21T17:56:11Z

Dear @AP6YC and @jjerphan

This is the review thread. Firstly, type

@editorialbot generate my checklist

to generate your own checklist. In that checklist, there are 23 check items. Whenever you complete the corresponding task, you can check off them.

Please write your comments as separate posts and do not modify your checklist descriptions.

The review process is interactive so you can always interact with the authors, reviewers, and the editor. You can also create issues and pull requests in the target repo. Please do mention this thread's URL in the issues so we can keep tracking what is going on out of our world.

Please do not hesitate to ask me about anything, anytime.

Thank you in advance!

jbytecode · 2022-12-21T17:57:12Z

@jjerphan - Thank you for creating your checklist.

@AP6YC - Could you please create your checklist as I described above?

AP6YC · 2022-12-21T18:21:03Z

Review checklist for @AP6YC

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/panagiotisanagnostou/HiPart?
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 (@panagiotisanagnostou) 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?

jbytecode · 2022-12-21T18:23:19Z

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot · 2022-12-21T18:23:23Z

Checking the BibTeX entries failed with the following error:

Failed to parse BibTeX entry: cite-key missing

jbytecode · 2022-12-21T18:23:36Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2022-12-21T18:24:51Z

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

jjerphan · 2022-12-30T18:10:08Z

I started reviewing the HiPart in the last few days.

I am drafting panagiotisanagnostou/HiPart#19 to provide explicit suggestions for the repository.

jbytecode · 2023-01-13T15:28:10Z

Dear reviewers @AP6YC and @jjerphan

Could you please update us on how is your review going?

Thank you in advance

jjerphan · 2023-01-13T16:36:09Z

Hi @jbytecode, I did a first review and need to find some time to get in the details for the last items which are not checked yet (e.g. reproducing results) and provide comprehensive feedback to authors. To me, I am on track.

jbytecode · 2023-01-13T18:34:36Z

@jjerphan - I am appreciated of your great effort and spending your valuable time for JOSS. Thank you for your quick response.

jjerphan · 2023-01-13T18:36:39Z

You are welcome. Ideally I will finish my review this weekend.

AP6YC · 2023-01-13T21:30:15Z

@jjerphan Sorry for the delay; I am prioritizing my review and suggestions to the authors to be complete this week.

jjerphan · 2023-01-14T13:17:06Z

A remark of Conflict of interest

I am one of the maintainers of scikit-learn which is providing reference implementation of clustering algorithms. I do not have any conflict of interest in the favor of the acceptance of the rejection of this paper: scikit-learn contributors and maintainers welcome qualitative third party packages extending scikit-learn in the ecosystem.

Last review items' clarification

As of https://github.com/panagiotisanagnostou/HiPart/tree/f6c0d3785741f752a5a2cecafcef1d1eb03347bb, I have not checked the following 7 items of the 21 items mainly because I have questions, remarks or suggestions to improve of them:

Contribution and authorship
Substantial scholarly effort
Functionality
Performance
Reproducibility
Community guidelines
Quality of writing

Bellow are my questions, remarks or suggestions for each of them.

Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@panagiotisanagnostou) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

It is clear that @panagiotisanagnostou is the main major contributor to HiPart. @stevestavropoulos also has contributed notable to HiPart.

To validate this item I would like to know the rationale for other authors' presence given that authors are indicated as having contributed equally.

Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

I think HiPart is rather small as a package with perfectible aspects. To me, HiPart currently do not meet all the criteria for being eligible to be published in JOSS. Yet, I think it is on track and that this submission is appreciable and legitimate.

Perfectible aspects of HiPart are:

its documentation: for now, there is a small number of undocumented examples. Notebook styles examples for all methods might improve HiPart approachability and adoption.
names containing typos and not PEP8-compliant: as an example, I think bicecting_kmeans must be renamed BisectingKmeans
lack comparisons with other libraries in the Scientific Python Ecosystem, in particular proof of functionality for the targeted problems (scalable methods for high dimensional data clustering) with respect to alternatives.
code quality: there's currently a lot of duplication on some files (see the ones graded as F). Due to the size of the library, some more effort can bring it to a A grade on Codacy.

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.)

Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.

I unfortunately can't reproduce results (benchmarks and figures) using script in paper/paper_scripts. Some import paths are invalid and data is missing.

To validate this item, please do check that those scripts work (I think using relative paths might help prevent issues).

Moreover, from my reading of the implementations (which are mainly backed by NumPy), I hardly think implementations can be scalable or efficient for the targeted problems.

I can't say if HiPart is completely functional, is performant, and if claims are backed by reproducible results.

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

Guidelines for 2) and 3) are clear to me but guidelines for 1) are missing. Adding a simple contributing guide as CONTRIBUTING.md would suffice to me.

Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?

See panagiotisanagnostou/HiPart#23 for remarks for this items.

jjerphan · 2023-01-15T09:25:27Z

@jjerphan Sorry for the delay; I am prioritizing my review and suggestions to the authors to be complete this week.

@AP6YC: I am not sure if you instead intended to mention @jbytecode. To me, it's fine: you still have at least two weeks left. 🙂

editorialbot · 2023-04-10T10:16:28Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/34.291440 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3066222 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.54476/apjaet/32579 may be a valid DOI for title: Software-based supplementary materials in MAPEH for enhanced learning resource management and delivery system
- 10.1164/rccm.201406-1099oc may be a valid DOI for title: Gene expression in relation to exhaled nitric oxide identifies novel asthma phenotypes with unique biomolecular pathways
- 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.03.004 may be a valid DOI for title: Single-cell RNA-seq reveals hypothalamic cell diversity
- 10.1016/j.cels.2016.08.011 may be a valid DOI for title: A single-cell transcriptomic map of the human and mouse pancreas reveals inter-and intra-cell population structure
- 10.1145/1143844.1143892 may be a valid DOI for title: Practical Solutions to the Problem of Diagonal Dominance in Kernel Document Clustering
- 10.32614/rj-2019-046 may be a valid DOI for title: PPCI: an R package for cluster identification using projection pursuit
- 10.1007/s11222-018-9814-6 may be a valid DOI for title: Minimum spectral connectivity projection pursuit
- 10.1109/tpami.2016.2609929 may be a valid DOI for title: Clustering by minimum cut hyperplanes
- 10.1037/1082-989x.9.3.386 may be a valid DOI for title: Properties of the Hubert-Arable Adjusted Rand Index.
- 10.2139/ssrn.2937843 may be a valid DOI for title: A comparative analysis of community detection algorithms on artificial networks
- 10.1016/b978-1-55860-377-6.50048-7 may be a valid DOI for title: Newsweeder: Learning to filter netnews
- 10.1007/s40815-017-0327-9 may be a valid DOI for title: Fuzzy approach topic discovery in health and medical corpora
- 10.1137/1.9781611972719.5 may be a valid DOI for title: On the performance of bisecting K-means and PDDP
- 10.1007/978-1-84800-046-9_3 may be a valid DOI for title: Principal direction divisive partitioning with kernels and k-means steering

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2010.05.025 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

jbytecode · 2023-04-10T10:18:27Z

@panagiotisanagnostou - Could you please try adding missing DOI's as the editorial bot suggests? Addition to this, a single DOI seems to be invalid (you can replace the http header part and just include the DOI info).

panagiotisanagnostou · 2023-04-10T11:25:30Z

@jbytecode I will apply all the changes as soon as possible, at the same time with the post-review checklist completion.

panagiotisanagnostou · 2023-04-11T11:19:37Z

@jbytecode I am happy to tell you that the I have done the final checks required by the post review process.

The final release, after the end of the review process, for the HiPart package is the version v0.3.1
The Zenodo archive DOI for the HiPart package v0.3.1 is: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7814113
I committed the changes required for the missing/invalid DOIs.
I did the final double checks from the list "Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete"

I hope everything is in order now.

jbytecode · 2023-04-11T11:21:37Z

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot · 2023-04-11T11:25:54Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7602956 is OK
- 10.1164/rccm.201406-1099OC is OK
- 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.03.004 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cels.2016.08.011 is OK
- 10.1109/34.291440 is OK
- 10.1145/1143844.1143892 is OK
- 10.32614/RJ-2019-046 is OK
- 10.1007/s11222-018-9814-6 is OK
- 10.1109/TPAMI.2016.2609929 is OK
- 10.1037/1082-989X.9.3.386 is OK
- 10.1038/srep30750 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-1-55860-377-6.50048-7 is OK
- 10.1007/s40815-017-0327-9 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3066222 is OK
- 10.1137/1.9781611972719.5 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-84800-046-9_3 is OK
- 10.1016/j.patcog.2010.05.025 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

jbytecode · 2023-04-11T11:26:31Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2023-04-11T11:28:29Z

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

jbytecode · 2023-04-11T11:32:49Z

@editorialbot set v0.3.1 as version

editorialbot · 2023-04-11T11:32:51Z

Done! version is now v0.3.1

jbytecode · 2023-04-11T11:34:13Z

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7814113 as archive

editorialbot · 2023-04-11T11:34:16Z

Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7814113

jbytecode · 2023-04-11T11:35:05Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2023-04-11T11:35:06Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2023-04-11T11:36:40Z

👋 @openjournals/dsais-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#4108, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2023-04-11T11:40:46Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7602956 is OK
- 10.1164/rccm.201406-1099OC is OK
- 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.03.004 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cels.2016.08.011 is OK
- 10.1109/34.291440 is OK
- 10.1145/1143844.1143892 is OK
- 10.32614/RJ-2019-046 is OK
- 10.1007/s11222-018-9814-6 is OK
- 10.1109/TPAMI.2016.2609929 is OK
- 10.1037/1082-989X.9.3.386 is OK
- 10.1038/srep30750 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-1-55860-377-6.50048-7 is OK
- 10.1007/s40815-017-0327-9 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3066222 is OK
- 10.1137/1.9781611972719.5 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-84800-046-9_3 is OK
- 10.1016/j.patcog.2010.05.025 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

arfon · 2023-04-18T10:44:17Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2023-04-18T10:44:18Z

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

editorialbot · 2023-04-18T10:46:07Z

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Anagnostou
  given-names: Panagiotis
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4775-9220"
- family-names: Tasoulis
  given-names: Sotiris
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9536-4090"
- family-names: Plagianakos
  given-names: Vassilis P.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4266-701X"
- family-names: Tasoulis
  given-names: Dimitris
contact:
- family-names: Anagnostou
  given-names: Panagiotis
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4775-9220"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7814113
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Anagnostou
    given-names: Panagiotis
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4775-9220"
  - family-names: Tasoulis
    given-names: Sotiris
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9536-4090"
  - family-names: Plagianakos
    given-names: Vassilis P.
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4266-701X"
  - family-names: Tasoulis
    given-names: Dimitris
  date-published: 2023-04-18
  doi: 10.21105/joss.05024
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 84
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 5024
  title: "HiPart: Hierarchical Divisive Clustering Toolbox"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05024"
  volume: 8
title: "HiPart: Hierarchical Divisive Clustering Toolbox"

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

editorialbot · 2023-04-18T10:46:11Z

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

editorialbot · 2023-04-18T10:46:12Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2023-04-18T10:46:13Z

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.05024 joss-papers#4139
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05024
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

arfon · 2023-04-18T11:39:39Z

@AP6YC, @jjerphan – many thanks for your reviews here and to @jbytecode 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 ✨

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

editorialbot · 2023-04-18T11:39:41Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.05024/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05024)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05024">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05024/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05024/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05024

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

jjerphan · 2023-04-18T11:42:16Z

Thank you for this message and for managing the edition of the JOSS, @arfon.

I am relatively glad of this first review. I will try to be a bit more reactive for the subsequent ones, if I have time to review any other submissions.

panagiotisanagnostou · 2023-04-18T12:53:18Z

@arfon, @jbytecode, @AP6YC, and @jjerphan, thank you for a great review process. I enjoyed working with all of you.

I hope, in the future, to have more projects for submission to this journal.

editorialbot added CSS Python review TeX Track: 5 (DSAIS) Data Science, Artificial Intelligence, and Machine Learning labels Dec 21, 2022

editorialbot assigned jbytecode Dec 21, 2022

editorialbot mentioned this issue Dec 21, 2022

[PRE REVIEW]: HiPart: Hierarchical divisive clustering toolbox #4964

Closed

jjerphan mentioned this issue Dec 30, 2022

Review for your submission to the Journal of Open Source Software. panagiotisanagnostou/HiPart#19

Merged

jjerphan mentioned this issue Jan 14, 2023

Review for your submission to the Journal of Open Source Software (continued) panagiotisanagnostou/HiPart#23

Merged

6 tasks

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Apr 11, 2023

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Apr 18, 2023

arfon closed this as completed Apr 18, 2023

[REVIEW]: HiPart: Hierarchical divisive clustering toolbox #5024

[REVIEW]: HiPart: Hierarchical divisive clustering toolbox #5024

Comments

editorialbot commented Dec 21, 2022 • edited

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Dec 21, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 21, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 21, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 21, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 21, 2022

jjerphan commented Dec 21, 2022 • edited

Review checklist for @jjerphan

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

jbytecode commented Dec 21, 2022

jbytecode commented Dec 21, 2022

AP6YC commented Dec 21, 2022 • edited

Review checklist for @AP6YC

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

jbytecode commented Dec 21, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 21, 2022

jbytecode commented Dec 21, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 21, 2022

jjerphan commented Dec 30, 2022

jbytecode commented Jan 13, 2023

jjerphan commented Jan 13, 2023

jbytecode commented Jan 13, 2023

jjerphan commented Jan 13, 2023

AP6YC commented Jan 13, 2023

jjerphan commented Jan 14, 2023

A remark of Conflict of interest

Last review items' clarification

jjerphan commented Jan 15, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 10, 2023

jbytecode commented Apr 10, 2023

panagiotisanagnostou commented Apr 10, 2023

panagiotisanagnostou commented Apr 11, 2023

jbytecode commented Apr 11, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 11, 2023

jbytecode commented Apr 11, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 11, 2023

jbytecode commented Apr 11, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 11, 2023

jbytecode commented Apr 11, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 11, 2023

jbytecode commented Apr 11, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 11, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 11, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 11, 2023

arfon commented Apr 18, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 18, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 18, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 18, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 18, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 18, 2023

arfon commented Apr 18, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 18, 2023

jjerphan commented Apr 18, 2023

panagiotisanagnostou commented Apr 18, 2023

editorialbot commented Dec 21, 2022 •

edited

jjerphan commented Dec 21, 2022 •

edited

AP6YC commented Dec 21, 2022 •

edited