[REVIEW]: CeRULEo: Comprehensive utilitiEs for Remaining Useful Life Estimation methOds

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @lucianolorenti (Luciano Rolando Lorenti)
Repository: https://github.com/lucianolorenti/ceruleo
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v2.0.5
Editor: @matthewfeickert
Reviewers: @AnnikaStein, @ulf1
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8187300

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c879c234d7741885576ddc682416b41f"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c879c234d7741885576ddc682416b41f/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c879c234d7741885576ddc682416b41f/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c879c234d7741885576ddc682416b41f)

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

@AnnikaStein & @ulf1 & @Athene-ai, 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 @matthewfeickert 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 @AnnikaStein

📝 Checklist for @Athene-ai

📝 Checklist for @ulf1

[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]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/tii.2014.2349359 is OK
- 10.1109/phm.2008.4711422 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ress.2017.11.021 is OK
- 10.3233/atde210095 is OK
- 10.1007/s10489-021-03004-y is OK
- 10.1109/rams.2015.7105079 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1907.12207 is OK
- 10.3390/math9233137 is OK
- 10.1109/icit.2019.8754956 is OK
- 10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106113 is OK
- 10.1016/j.conengprac.2021.104969 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.18 s (768.8 files/s, 120737.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          98           3700           2870          10254
Jupyter Notebook                 6              0           3658            549
TeX                              2             68              0            382
Markdown                        30            185              0            305
YAML                             5             37             16            235
TOML                             1              5              0             37
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           142           3995           6544          11762
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 779

[editorialbot]

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

[matthewfeickert]

@AnnikaStein, @ulf1, @Athene-ai 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 (and if you leave notes on each item that's even better). There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines. I find it particularly helpful to also use the JOSS review criteria and review checklist docs as supplement/guides to the reviewer checklist @editorialbot will make for you.

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#5294 so that a link is created to this Issue 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 4 weeks. Please let me know if either of you require some more time (that's perfectly okay). We can also use @editorialbot to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@matthewfeickert) if you have any questions/concerns.

[AnnikaStein]

Review checklist for @AnnikaStein

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/lucianolorenti/ceruleo?
• 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 (@lucianolorenti) 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)?
  • DONE Similar point as what has been raised by ulf, l.40: studyng -> studying
  • DONE The abbreviation PdM has been introduced, but has not been used once (compared to RUL, which is used several times throughout the paper). Consider using PdM or not introduce the abbreviation PdM.
• 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?
  • DONE Syntax is fine, there could be additional citation of the software (l.44: scikit-learn, tensorflow)

Issue created here: lucianolorenti/ceruleo#25
Fixed in: lucianolorenti/ceruleo#26

[Athene-ai]

Review checklist for @Athene-ai

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/lucianolorenti/ceruleo?
• 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 (@lucianolorenti) 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?

[ulf1]

Review checklist for @ulf1

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/lucianolorenti/ceruleo?
• 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 (@lucianolorenti) 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.
  • not applicable
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
  • not applicable
• 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.
  • not applicable

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
  • Installation failed and dependencies have no versions  lucianolorenti/ceruleo#23
• Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
  • blocked see Issue 23
• Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)
  • blocked see Issue 23

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.
  • Installation failed and dependencies have no versions  lucianolorenti/ceruleo#23 => Fixed it https://github.com/lucianolorenti/ceruleo/pull/24/files#diff-50c86b7ed8ac2cf95bd48334961bf0530cdc77b5a56f852c5c61b89d735fd711
• Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
  • The docs https://lucianolorenti.github.io/ceruleo/ contain various jupyter notebooks that explains how to use parts of the python package. However, I cannot find a full example that demonstrate a use case. it is not clear to me. (the sensor validation nb uses the "PHM Data Challenge" dataset)
  • example nb works: https://lucianolorenti.github.io/ceruleo/dataset/Example/
  • example nb works: https://lucianolorenti.github.io/ceruleo/dataset/analysis/Sensor%20Validation/
  • ⚠️ The ceruleo.dataset.catalog.PHMDataset2018 demo dataset (5 Gb) is provided via Google Drive what is not the place to store. What is the best practice that JOSS prefers?
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
  • Yes see various jupyter notebooks in https://lucianolorenti.github.io/ceruleo/
• Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
  • Yes, various unit tests and Github Actions, https://github.com/lucianolorenti/ceruleo/blob/main/.github/workflows/test.yml and https://github.com/lucianolorenti/ceruleo/tree/main/tests
• 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
  • No, there is no CONTRIBUTING.md guideline, e.g. see https://github.com/fzi-forschungszentrum-informatik/TSInterpret#-contributing
  • (optional) No, there is no CLA mechansim, e.g. https://github.com/marketplace/actions/cla-assistant-lite

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?
  • are there really no other popular software packages in science and industry for predictive maintenance? see [REVIEW]: CeRULEo: Comprehensive utilitiEs for Remaining Useful Life Estimation methOds #5294 (comment)
• Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
  • typo in line 40 "studyng" see lucianolorenti/ceruleo@b866287
• 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?

[ulf1]

hello @lucianolorenti
i had problems installing the package
#5294 (comment)

[matthewfeickert]

👋 @lucianolorenti, @AnnikaStein, @ulf1, @Athene-ai Just checking in on things. It seems that the review is ongoing, which is good and that there are GitHub Issues being opened given the discussions. 👍

As the review has been going for 3 weeks at this point I'll have @editorialbot give us reminders in 2 weeks to follow up on anything outstanding.

[matthewfeickert]

@editorialbot remind @AnnikaStein in 2 weeks

[editorialbot]

Reminder set for @AnnikaStein in 2 weeks

[matthewfeickert]

@editorialbot remind @ulf1 in 2 weeks

[editorialbot]

Reminder set for @ulf1 in 2 weeks

[matthewfeickert]

@editorialbot remind @Athene-ai in 2 weeks

[editorialbot]

Reminder set for @Athene-ai in 2 weeks

[Athene-ai]

@matthewfeickert I have jus made my review

[matthewfeickert]

@Athene-ai At the moment the "Reproducibility" check in your review is left blank. Can you please add a comment to the checklist about why, and if there is an issue with the state of reproducibility of the submission open a GitHub Issue on https://github.com/lucianolorenti/ceruleo for it?

[matthewfeickert]

@ulf1 You've added helpful comments and notes to your review #5294 (comment), which is exactly what we hope that reviewers will do. 👍 Some of your notes though point out problems or typos in the submission. Can you please translate all of those problems to GitHub Issues on https://github.com/lucianolorenti/ceruleo like you did with lucianolorenti/ceruleo#23 (maybe prefixing the titles with [JOSS Review] to help @lucianolorenti differentiate them) ?

[Athene-ai]

@Athene-ai At the moment the "Reproducibility" check in your review is left blank. Can you please add a comment to the checklist about why, and if there is an issue with the state of reproducibility of the submission open a GitHub Issue on https://github.com/lucianolorenti/ceruleo for it?

Just done

[editorialbot]

👋 @AnnikaStein, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

[editorialbot]

👋 @ulf1, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

[editorialbot]

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

[matthewfeickert]

@editorialbot set v2.0.5 as version

[editorialbot]

Done! version is now v2.0.5

[matthewfeickert]

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.8187300 as archive

[editorialbot]

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.8187300

[matthewfeickert]

@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

- 10.1109/tii.2014.2349359 is OK
- 10.1109/phm.2008.4711422 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ress.2017.11.021 is OK
- 10.3233/atde210095 is OK
- 10.1007/s10489-021-03004-y is OK
- 10.1109/rams.2015.7105079 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1907.12207 is OK
- 10.3390/math9233137 is OK
- 10.1109/icit.2019.8754956 is OK
- 10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106113 is OK
- 10.1016/j.conengprac.2021.104969 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1201.0490 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1603.04467 is OK
- 10.1016/j.neucom.2018.03.067 is OK
- 10.1080/00207543.2022.2154403 is OK
- 10.1016/j.grets.2023.100020 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👋 @openjournals/pe-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#4467, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[kyleniemeyer]

Hello @lucianolorenti, I'm doing some final checks before accepting.

Can you modify the metadata for your Zenodo archive so that the author list matches the paper?

[lucianolorenti]

Oh i didn't see that. Fixed it

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot accept

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

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: Lorenti
  given-names: Luciano
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4041-449X"
- family-names: Susto
  given-names: Gian Antonio
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5739-9639"
contact:
- family-names: Lorenti
  given-names: Luciano
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4041-449X"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8187300
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Lorenti
    given-names: Luciano
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4041-449X"
  - family-names: Susto
    given-names: Gian Antonio
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5739-9639"
  date-published: 2023-08-10
  doi: 10.21105/joss.05294
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 88
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 5294
  title: "CeRULEo: Comprehensive utilitiEs for Remaining Useful Life
    Estimation methOds"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05294"
  volume: 8
title: "CeRULEo: Comprehensive utilitiEs for Remaining Useful Life
  Estimation methOds"

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]

🐘🐘🐘 👉 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.05294 joss-papers#4469
1. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05294
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...

[matthewfeickert]

Can you modify the metadata for your Zenodo archive so that the author list matches the paper?

Ah thanks very much for catching that @kyleniemeyer!

Congratulations on your publication, @lucianolorenti! Well done!

Many thanks to @AnnikaStein and @ulf1 for their thorough reviews.

[kyleniemeyer]

Congratulations @lucianolorenti on your article's publication in JOSS! Please consider volunteering to review for us if you haven't already.

Thanks to @AnnikaStein and @ulf1 for reviewing this submission, and @matthewfeickert for editing.

[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.05294/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05294)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05294">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05294/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05294/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05294

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

[gianantonio]

Dear editors and reviewers,

thank you very much for handling the reviewing process of our work.

We realized that financial acknowledgements should be modified and we would like to ask for a post-publication update to the paper.

If possible the ack should be as follow:
"This work was partially carried out within the MICS (Made in Italy – Circular and Sustainable) Extended Partnership and received funding from Next-GenerationEU (Italian PNRR – M4 C2, Invest 1.3 – D.D. 1551.11-10-2022, PE00000004). Moreover this study was also partially carried out within the PNRR research activities of the consortium iNEST (Interconnected North-Est Innovation Ecosystem) funded by the European Union Next-GenerationEU (Piano Nazionale di Ripresa e Resilienza (PNRR) – Missione 4 Componente 2, Investimento 1.5 – D.D. 1058 23/06/2022, ECS00000043). This work was also co-funded by the European Union in the context of the Horizon Europe project 'AIMS5.0 - Artificial Intelligence in Manufacturing leading to Sustainability and Industry5.0' Grant agreement ID: 101112089."

Thank you for you support!

[kyleniemeyer]

@gianantonio if you can update the paper source with that acknowledgment, I can reprocess the final PDF.

[gianantonio]

i've updated the paper! thanks for the help!

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot reaccept

[editorialbot]

Rebuilding paper!

[editorialbot]

🌈 Paper updated!

New PDF and metadata files 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#4492

[kyleniemeyer]

OK @gianantonio it looks like the paper is correctly updated now.