[REVIEW]: MixEst: An Estimation Toolbox for Mixture Models

[whedon]

Submitting author: @reshadh (Reshad Hosseini)
Repository: https://github.com/utvisionlab/mixest
Version: v1.2.0
Editor: @arokem
Reviewer: @josephhardinee
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/bac8c079865ef33491d7ded0bfef0933"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/bac8c079865ef33491d7ded0bfef0933/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/bac8c079865ef33491d7ded0bfef0933/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/bac8c079865ef33491d7ded0bfef0933)

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) 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

@josephhardinee, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @arokem know.

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

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 repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.2.0)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@reshadh) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

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 function 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

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon. I'm here to help you with some common editorial tasks. @josephhardinee it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper 🎉.

⭐ Important ⭐

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

2. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

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

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/blob/joss.00524/joss.00524/10.21105.joss.00524.pdf

[arokem]

@josephhardinee : have you had a chance to take a look at mixest?

[arokem]

@josephhardinee : just checking in on this. Have you had a chance to take a look at the software at all? Please let me know if you need any more guidance on how to go about this review.

[josephhardinee]

@arokem Sorry, I got part way through then got hit with a bunch of work deadlines. I will finish this review tonight.

[arokem]

Hi @josephhardinee : I saw that you posted an issue on the software repo. Do you have any more comments here? Several of the check-boxes are currently unchecked -- does that mean that the authors need to fix some of these things? Thanks!

[arokem]

Any news here? I see that many of the check marks are marked. Any other comments, so that authors can fill the other requirements?

[arfon]

👋@reshadh - I noticed that the paper has been withdrawn on the JOSS site. Did you do this in error or are you wanting to withdraw your paper?

[josephhardinee]

Okay I finished going through this software (I greatly apologize to the authors for how long it took). I ran into an issue with Matlab on my second test machine not related to mixest. That has been fixed and an issue posted to mixest helping others in the future.
There are a few small things left.

1. The version on this can probably be updated to 1.3 to match the newest github version.
2. The paper above is perhaps a bit verbose compared to the example papers. I think mixest has rather beautiful documentation (more so than I knew was possible with Matlab) and I think can stand on it's own without the longer form submitted paper. I'd advise the authors to shorten it down to look more like the standard form given as an example.

Other than that I think this is good to go.

[reshadh]

I actually withdrew the paper. Sorry, I thought the reviewers would be informed on this. Otherwise, I would have mentioned this here.
Thanks!

[arfon]

I actually withdrew the paper. Sorry, I thought the reviewers would be informed on this. Otherwise, I would have mentioned this here.

OK thanks for letting us know @reshadh.

@arokem @josephhardinee - I'm sorry that this paper isn't proceeding, especially given all of your work here @josephhardinee.