[REVIEW]: MultilayerGraphs.jl: Multilayer Network Science in Julia

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @pitmonticone (Pietro Monticone)
Repository: https://github.com/JuliaGraphs/MultilayerGraphs.jl
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): JOSS
Version: 1.1.4
Editor: @diehlpk
Reviewers: @TomKellyGenetics, @bgailleton
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7697094

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7d1b94ff7a1a2ebd5e86075e86fc62fb"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7d1b94ff7a1a2ebd5e86075e86fc62fb/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7d1b94ff7a1a2ebd5e86075e86fc62fb/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7d1b94ff7a1a2ebd5e86075e86fc62fb)

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

@TomKellyGenetics & @bgailleton, 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 @diehlpk 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 @TomKellyGenetics

📝 Checklist for @bgailleton

[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=0.08 s (868.6 files/s, 189071.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                           47           1628            782           8898
Markdown                         8            608              0           2187
TeX                              2             44              0            500
YAML                             7              4              8            168
JSON                             1              0              0            130
TOML                             4              2              0             61
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            69           2286            790          11944
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1262

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1177/00375497211068820 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7009172 is OK
- 10.1016/j.socnet.2008.02.001 is OK
- 10.1093/comnet/cnu038 is OK
- 10.3390/genes9110519 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v098.i08 is OK
- 10.1103/physrevx.3.041022 is OK
- 10.1093/comnet/cnu016 is OK
- 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.07.001 is OK
- 10.1140/epjb/e2015-50742-1 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031218-013259 is OK
- 10.1137/0110037 is OK
- 10.1016/0012-365x(73)90037-x is OK
- 10.1103/physrevlett.111.128701 is OK
- 10.1103/physreve.88.050801 is OK
- 10.1103/physreve.90.052817 is OK
- 10.1103/physreve.89.042819 is OK
- 10.1103/physreve.93.042303 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1604401113 is OK
- 10.1038/nphys3865 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-017-06933-2 is OK
- 10.1093/gigascience/gix004 is OK
- 10.1038/s41559-017-0101 is OK
- 10.1103/physrevx.7.011014 is OK
- 10.1016/j.plrev.2017.11.003 is OK
- 10.1103/physrevx.8.031039 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-017-02658-y is OK
- 10.1162/netn_a_00033 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-019-39243-w is OK
- 10.1109/tnse.2018.2871726 is OK
- 10.1038/s41562-020-0931-9 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.2112182119 is OK
- 10.1093/oso/9780198753919.001.0001 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-92255-3 is OK
- 10.1017/9781009085809 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-75718-2 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-24520-1 is OK
- 10.1017/cbo9781139941907 is OK
- 10.17605/OSF.IO/GY53K is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[pitmonticone]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @pitmonticone, 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

[pitmonticone]

@editorialbot generate preprint

[editorialbot]

📄 Preprint file created: Find it here in the Artifacts list 📄

[pitmonticone]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

📄 Preprint file created: Find it here in the Artifacts list 📄

[editorialbot]

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

[TomKellyGenetics]

Review checklist for @TomKellyGenetics

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/JuliaGraphs/MultilayerGraphs.jl?
• 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 (@pitmonticone) 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?

[TomKellyGenetics]

Apologies for the slow follow-up due to unrelated personal reasons. I’m delighted to see that your software is well-documented and the paper is an excellent summary. The writing style differs from my field but it is easily understandable for a non-expert audience. I know from experience this is a difficult tasks that the authors have handled well. Excellent work.

Please give me more time to test the installation and run the code before giving more detailed feedback. So far I only have minor suggestions so if the quality of the software is at a similar level, I’d expect only few revisions would be necessary to give my recommendation to accept.

[diehlpk]

Hi @bgailleton how is your review going?

[bgailleton]

Hi @diehlpk , apologies or the slow review, I should be able to dedicate proper time to it tomorrow/Friday!

[bgailleton]

Review checklist for @bgailleton

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/JuliaGraphs/MultilayerGraphs.jl?
• 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 (@pitmonticone) 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?

[TomKellyGenetics]

Regarding the installation, I was not able to install the package following instructions in the documentation:

Resolving package versions...
ERROR: Unsatisfiable requirements detected for package MultilayerGraphs [af984530]:
MultilayerGraphs [af984530] log:
possible versions are: 0.1.1-1.1.3 or uninstalled

I noticed this configuration file restrictions which version of Julia can run it.

https://github.com/JuliaGraphs/MultilayerGraphs.jl/blob/d4411fbee4a5c504214f6896e384b45a33056b5d/Project.toml#L39

julia = "1.8"

Updating Julia 1.6.3 to 1.8.5 resolves this issue.

import Pkg
Pkg.add("MultilayerGraphs")
using MultilayerGraphs

While the configuration file automates installing other packages as dependencies, the software dependencies necessary for the user to understand should be clearly documented. Please list the minimum version of Julia (1.8) clearly in the installation instructions (e.g., under a 'System requirements' subheading). This should be a simple change to the documentation (and optionally the GitHub README).

Regarding the examples, my preference is to include them in the manuscript but I'll defer to editorial guidance and authorial discretion. However, I'll note this was already proposed in "pre-review" stage and the usage is described in the documentation linked: https://juliagraphs.org/MultilayerGraphs.jl/stable/

I'll proceed to review the functionality and usage based on the code examples given there. As there are no original results or data and no performance claims, I'll consider these out of scope of review in this case. Of course, it is well-established that Julia has performance advantages over R and Python but some of the alternatives run packages which call other languages Rcpp (C++) and igraph (C). Regardless of performance, I agree that this work is a welcome addition to the equivalent Julia package ecosystem and do not expect performance results to be included in this case.

Regarding community guidelines, I note these are described briefly here (https://juliagraphs.org/MultilayerGraphs.jl/stable/#How-to-Contribute) but Issues or Pull Request templates would be beneficial to guide new contributors. See here for details on how to set it up:
https://docs.github.com/en/communities/using-templates-to-encourage-useful-issues-and-pull-requests/configuring-issue-templates-for-your-repository

I'll update this thread when I've tested the software and completed my review. Thank you for your patience.

[TomKellyGenetics]

I confirmed that all code examples in the README execute without errors. The Tutorial however, give the following error when running some parts.

ERROR: MethodError: no method matching Layer(::Symbol, ::Vector{Node}, ::Float64, ::SimpleGraph{Int64}, ::Type{Float64}

Please check it is up-to-date with the current version of the package and can be run without aliases on a new user's environment.

On the other hand, the Tutorial does a better job at demonstrating how to call created objects and check their contents. The REPL prints helpful information while executing commands but this would be enhanced by demonstrations on to integrate multilayer graphs with existing systems to print Graph.jl components or visualise the graphs created. Rather than avoiding redundancy with other packages, stand-alone documentation that does not assume users have familiarity with them would be ideal.

The authors should be commended for preparing high quality short-form documentation and manuscript which concisely summarises the importance of this contribution. Clearer long-form documentation is recommended but not essential. I'll note that the R packages for this theme do not have vignettes demonstrating this functionality either.

For comparison, the documentation for the Leiden clustering algorithm in Python and R (by Vincent Traag and myself respectively) has examples of multilayer graphs with visualisations.
https://leidenalg.readthedocs.io/en/latest/multiplex.html#layer-multiplex
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/leiden/vignettes/run_multiplex.html

As a suggestion to extend this work, Louvain or Leiden clustering would be compatible with this framework. It is a significant amount of work not required to publish in my opinion (but within the scope of issue 94).

[pitmonticone]

Dear @TomKellyGenetics, thank you very much for your helpful comments.

Installation

While the configuration file automates installing other packages as dependencies, the software dependencies necessary for the user to understand should be clearly documented. Please list the minimum version of Julia (1.8) clearly in the installation instructions (e.g., under a 'System requirements' subheading). This should be a simple change to the documentation (and optionally the GitHub README).

We have changed the README, example and dev documentation accordingly. The stable documentation will be updated with the registration of the post-publication release.

Usage Example

Regarding the examples, my preference is to include them in the manuscript but I'll defer to editorial guidance and authorial discretion. However, I'll note this was already proposed in "pre-review" stage and the usage is described in the documentation linked: https://juliagraphs.org/MultilayerGraphs.jl/stable/

Yes, @diehlpk suggested to create an example folder and to link it to the manuscript, so we did exactly that.

Community Guidelines

Regarding community guidelines, I note these are described briefly here (https://juliagraphs.org/MultilayerGraphs.jl/stable/#How-to-Contribute) but Issues or Pull Request templates would be beneficial to guide new contributors. See here for details on how to set it up: https://docs.github.com/en/communities/using-templates-to-encourage-useful-issues-and-pull-requests/configuring-issue-templates-for-your-repository

We have added issue templates accordingly.

[bgailleton]

MultilayersGraphs.jl is a Julia package extending Graphs.jl (a well-established package to create and manipulate all sorts of graph data structures) by adding to the numerical ecosystem Multilayer Graphs.

Overall, the package is well-documented (overview, installation, usage and API); the code itself well structured and reasonably well commented; and the manuscript clear, concise and understandable for the non-specialists.

I believe it represents a great addition to JOSS and recommend publication, after maybe minor changes. I have just submitted an issue with more detailed comments and eventual recommendations on the repository to keep this thread clear.

[ClaudMor]

Dear @TomKellyGenetics ,

I'd like to integrate what's been written by @pitmonticone with two notes regarding the error you got while running the tutorial and the issue about console printing and visualizations.

Error inside the Tutorial

I confirmed that all code examples in the README execute without errors. The Tutorial however, give the following error when running some parts.
ERROR: MethodError: no method matching Layer(::Symbol, ::Vector{Node}, ::Float64, ::SimpleGraph{Int64}, ::Type{Float64}
Please check it is up-to-date with the current version of the package and can be run without aliases on a new user's environment.

I created a fresh environment where only essential packages have been installed:

Status `...\Project.toml`
  [31c24e10] Distributions v0.25.83
  [86223c79] Graphs v1.8.0
  [626554b9] MetaGraphs v0.7.2
  [af984530] MultilayerGraphs v1.1.3
  [b43c691f] SimpleValueGraphs v0.4.1
  [47aef6b3] SimpleWeightedGraphs v1.3.0
  [2913bbd2] StatsBase v0.33.21

And re-run the parts of the tutorial that instantiate Layers. Although I ran them multiple times to ensure it was not coincidental, I could not reproduce the error. Could you point us to the line where it occurs and maybe also copy-paste the entire stacktrace? From the error message you reported above it seems that the "random constructor" of the Layer receives a real-valued number of edges, which makes me suspect it could be an error in the Tutorial rather than in the package, although I cannot find it at the moment.

While running the tutorial, I found an error on another line, which I corrected.

Console print and Visualisations

On the other hand, the Tutorial does a better job at demonstrating how to call created objects and check their contents. The REPL prints helpful information while executing commands but this would be enhanced by demonstrations on to integrate multilayer graphs with existing systems to print Graph.jl components or visualise the graphs created. Rather than avoiding redundancy with other packages, stand-alone documentation that does not assume users have familiarity with them would be ideal.

We're glad you found the displayed information useful. When a multilayer graph-object, a Layer or an Interlayer are entered in the REPL, a quick summary of their components is shown, including the underlying graph type(s). Thus, I'm not quite clear on what you mean by "this would be enhanced by demonstrations on to integrate multilayer graphs with existing systems to print Graph.jl components". On which occasions would you, more specifically, like to see more information displayed?

Regarding visualizations, the package does not have that functionality yet, but, just as the clustering algorithms mentioned above, they are part of the package's future plans.

[pitmonticone]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[danielskatz]

@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

- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1177/00375497211068820 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7009172 is OK
- 10.1016/j.socnet.2008.02.001 is OK
- 10.1093/comnet/cnu038 is OK
- 10.3390/genes9110519 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v098.i08 is OK
- 10.1103/physrevx.3.041022 is OK
- 10.1093/comnet/cnu016 is OK
- 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.07.001 is OK
- 10.1140/epjb/e2015-50742-1 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031218-013259 is OK
- 10.1137/0110037 is OK
- 10.1016/0012-365x(73)90037-x is OK
- 10.1103/physrevlett.111.128701 is OK
- 10.1103/physreve.88.050801 is OK
- 10.1103/physreve.90.052817 is OK
- 10.1103/physreve.89.042819 is OK
- 10.1103/physreve.93.042303 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1604401113 is OK
- 10.1038/nphys3865 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-017-06933-2 is OK
- 10.1093/gigascience/gix004 is OK
- 10.1038/s41559-017-0101 is OK
- 10.1103/physrevx.7.011014 is OK
- 10.1016/j.plrev.2017.11.003 is OK
- 10.1103/physrevx.8.031039 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-017-02658-y is OK
- 10.1162/netn_a_00033 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-019-39243-w is OK
- 10.1109/tnse.2018.2871726 is OK
- 10.1038/s41562-020-0931-9 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.2112182119 is OK
- 10.1093/oso/9780198753919.001.0001 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-92255-3 is OK
- 10.1017/9781009085809 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-75718-2 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-24520-1 is OK
- 10.1017/cbo9781139941907 is OK
- 10.17605/OSF.IO/GY53K is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[danielskatz]

@pitmonticone - I'll come back to this and complete the processing in the next 24 hours

[pitmonticone]

Thank you @danielskatz and @tarleb for your PRs.

I've just reviewed and merged them.

[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#4014, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[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.05116 joss-papers#4015
1. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05116
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 @pitmonticone (Pietro Monticone) and co-author!!

And thanks to @TomKellyGenetics and @bgailleton for reviewing, and to @diehlpk for editing!
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.05116/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05116)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05116">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05116/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05116/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05116

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

[pitmonticone]

@danielskatz

Is it possible to

• change the citation string by ensuring that both authors (who have contributed equally) get mentioned (i.e. from "Moroni et al." to "Moroni and Monticone");
• change the BibTeX handle from "Moroni2023" to "MoroniMonticone2023"?

Thanks in advance.

[danielskatz]

👋 @arfon - Can we handle the above requests?

[TomKellyGenetics]

Quick update on testing the package.

I've confirmed this package runs as described on Mac OS (in addition to Windows). I tried running it on a different Linux system but there problems installing dependencies in my environment. This seems to be an issue with dependent packages, not the published work, therefore I think it will not be necessary to report issues to the developers. If that changes, I'll submit issues directly to the package GitHub repository separate from the JOSS review.

@pitmonticone @ClaudMor Thank you for your cooperation.

[pitmonticone]

Can we handle the above requests?

Hi @danielskatz and @arfon, any update on this?

Thanks in advance.

[danielskatz]

@arfon will need to respond - I know that I don't have the ability to do this, but he might.

[arfon]

@pitmonticone – I've updated the citation string on the JOSS website as requested. Unfortunately it's not possible to change the BibTeX key generated on the site.

[pitmonticone]

Thank you very much @arfon!

[pitmonticone]

Hi @arfon @danielskatz,

Where can I find the .tex source of the paper?

[pitmonticone]

@editorialbot generate preprint

[editorialbot]

📄 Preprint file created: Find it here in the Artifacts list 📄

[danielskatz]

The source of the paper is https://github.com/JuliaGraphs/MultilayerGraphs.jl/tree/JOSS/paper

[pitmonticone]

Thanks @danielskatz for your reply, but I was referring to the related .tex file.