[REVIEW]: PII-Codex: a Python library for PII detection, categorization, and severity assessment

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @EdyVision (Eidan Rosado)
Repository: https://github.com/EdyVision/pii-codex
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-paper-submission
Version: 0.4.3
Editor: @arfon
Reviewers: @gradvohl, @tmickleydoyle
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8053039

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5296a84bba0925e682dcddf14bec5880"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5296a84bba0925e682dcddf14bec5880/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5296a84bba0925e682dcddf14bec5880/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5296a84bba0925e682dcddf14bec5880)

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

@gradvohl, 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 @arfon 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 @gradvohl

📝 Checklist for @tmickleydoyle

[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=0.06 s (726.7 files/s, 71940.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          27            403            412           2296
Markdown                         6            114              0            492
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            193            269
YAML                             6              9              6            159
TeX                              1              1              0            112
TOML                             1             11              2             74
make                             1             17              2             41
JSON                             1              0              0             18
INI                              1              6              0             14
Bourne Shell                     1              0              0              1
SVG                              1              0              0              1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            47            561            615           3477
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1410

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1111/joca.12111 is OK
- 10.1093/ct/qtz035 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7212576 is OK
- 10.6028/nist.sp.800-122 is OK
- 10.1145/3343038 is OK
- 10.4018/978-1-5225-8897-9.ch019 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[arfon]

@gradvohl – This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above. Please create your checklist typing:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5402 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks but please make a start well ahead of this as JOSS reviews are by their nature iterative and any early feedback you may be able to provide to the author will be very helpful in meeting this schedule.

[arfon]

@gradvohl – as I mentioned in the pre-review thread, would you mind copying your review over into this review thread too to make sure things are all linked up here?

[gradvohl]

Review checklist for @gradvohl

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/EdyVision/pii-codex?
• 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 (@EdyVision) 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?

[gradvohl]

Reviewer report for JOSS paper #5042

Paper title: PII-Codex: a Python library for PII detection, categorization, and severity assessment

Review criteria

Note: Whenever I marked an item with ⚠️ or ⛔, you can get more information about that evaluation in the Reviewer Comments section.

• A list of the authors of the software: ⛔ -- Please see the About authors and their affiliation in the Reviewer Comments section.
• Author affiliations: ⛔-- Please see the About authors and their affiliation in the Reviewer Comments section.
• A summary describing the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience: ✔️
• A clear statement of need that illustrates the purpose of the software: ⚠️-- Please see the About the statement of need in the Reviewer Comments section.
• Mentions (if applicable) of any ongoing research projects using the software or recent scholarly publications enabled by it: ⚠️-- Please see the Mentions of any ongoing research projects in the Reviewer Comments section).
• A list of key references, including a link to the software archive: ⛔ -- Please see the A list of key references in the Reviewer Comments section.

Review items

• Software license: 👍 (good -- BSD-3-Clause)
• Substantial scholarly effort: 👋 ⚠️ (sort of -- Please see the Scholarly effort in the Reviewer Comments section)
• Documentation:
  • A statement of need: 👋 (sort of) ⚠️-- Please see the About the statement of need in the Reviewer Comments section).
  • Installation instructions: (bad -- Please see the About the Installation Instructions in the Reviewer Comments section).
  • Example usage: 👋 (sort of -- Please see the Example usage in the Reviewer Comments section).
  • API documentation: 👋 (sort of -- Please see the API Docs in the Reviewer Comments section).
  • Community guidelines: 👎 (bad -- Please see the Community guidelines in the Reviewer Comments section).
  • Functionality: 👎 (bad -- Please see the Tests on source code in the Reviewer Comments section).
  • Tests: 👎 (bad -- Please see the Tests on source code in the Reviewer Comments section).
• Software paper
  • The file paper.md file is in the joss-paper-submission branch. ⛔.
  • Authors: 👍 (good)
  • A statement of need: 👍 (good)
  • Quality of writing: 👍 (good)
  • References: 👋 (sort of) -- Please see the A list of key references section in the Reviewer Comments section.

Test environment

We try to run the software on Rocky Linux X86_64 computer, but the installation fails.

Reviewer comments

The following comments refer to items the author could improve to meet JOSS submission requirements.

About authors and their affiliation

The repository needs to clearly show who the authors are and their affiliation in the README.md file.

About the statement of need

The README.md
needs to state clearly what problems the author designate the software to solve and who the target audience is. Although the first section of the README.md file quickly mentions the software's importance, the author must make it explicit and meaningful. Therefore, I suggest a special section in the README.md file with the statement of need.

About the Installation Instructions

When I followed the installation instructions using the command pip3 install -i pii-codex, it raised the following error:

You must give at least one requirement to install (see "pip help install")

After that, when I remove the flag -i, the following error message pops up:

  Could not find a version that satisfies the requirement pii-codex (from versions: )
No matching distribution found for pii-codex

The installation instructions must work as smoothly as possible.

About paper.md file

I did not find the paper.md file in the main branch. I consider it better to put paper.md and paper.bib in the master branch.

Mentions of any ongoing research projects

There are mentions of other research that influenced the software. However, it would be interesting if the authors informed the readers if any project that uses the PII-Codex exists. I recommend citing that project or, perhaps, writing about its potential in other research projects.

A list of key references

There is no list of key references in the repository, just in the paper.md file. Although the README.md file cites two references -- Milne et al. (2016) and Schwartz and Solove (2012) --, there is no information about those references in the repository.
In addition, most of the references the author cited in the paper point to manuals or reports. That situation is acceptable, but I miss more citations of scientific literature.

Example usage

The example usage described in the README.md file is very straightforward. However, there is a docs directory with more specific information, which is good. Nevertheless, the first section (PII Type Mappings) has a broken link.

Scholarly effort

Reading the documentation and the README.md file, the substantial effort to build the software needs to be clarified. I highlight that my opinion is not a demerit of the software. Perhaps the author can present the scholarly effort to build the software more clearly, citing more studies and references.

API Docs

I did not find any documentation about the code regarding the API documentation. The source code has some documentation strings, but it needs better documentation. Therefore, I strongly recommend using a standard to document the source code. I suggest using the Sphinx software. Sphinx can generate the docs (in HTML or PDF) from the documented source files.

Community guidelines

There is not enough information about contributing to PII-Index and there are no community guidelines. Therefore, I propose creating a Contributing section (or a CONTRIBUTING.md file) with more specific instructions about contributing, including contact channels with main developers.

Tests on source code

We cannot test the software as we cannot install it using the proposed instructions.

Conclusion

Analyzing all the aspects mentioned earlier, I rank the paper as major revisions needed. Although most of those revisions are very easy to implement, I consider the lack of documentation, the absence of the paper.md file in the master branch, and the failure of simple installation instructions in the README.md prevents acceptance of the paper at this time.

[arfon]

@editorialbot add @tmickleydoyle as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@tmickleydoyle added to the reviewers list!

[arfon]

@tmickleydoyle – This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above. Please create your checklist typing:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5402 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks but please make a start well ahead of this as JOSS reviews are by their nature iterative and any early feedback you may be able to provide to the author will be very helpful in meeting this schedule.

[EdyVision]

Hello @gradvohl,
Thank you for your review. I am a little confused and concerned as the guidelines stated we can submit to JOSS using a feature branch with our paper (instead of having it in the main branch), and I couldn’t find the reference for the need to put the author/affiliations in the readme file. I do have my affiliations in the citations file and in the paper PR the review is attached to. If needed, I can merge the paper PR into the main branch, I just wasn’t prepared to do so in case there were updates requested for the paper. I have a PR to add the community guidelines from the readme into the CONTRIBUTING.md file and some other upgrades. I’ll have to check out Sphynx to expand on the documentation. Thank you for that suggestion. As for the install issue, I have a few other projects using this that cannot be open-sourced yet (they are due to be publicized this fall after my defense). I do have a notebook in Google Collab where I was able to install and use the package. I’m linking the notebook to the readme for transparency, and I’ve stated in the readme that, at this time, only Ubuntu and MacOS were confirmed to work. Running locally, however, will require the use of poetry. I did update those instructions to be more clear.

Can you clarify where you were hoping for more citations? The README briefly touches on the primary citations used to derive categories and the enum types, but papers associated with the problem space were contained in the paper. The Milne types and the risk continuum levels and our ability to map to those types/levels were the primary conceptual targets, but I’m happy to revisit them. I wanted to make sure I understood expectations ahead of merging the next round of updates.

Thanks again for the review and your time!

[arfon]

Thank you for your review. I am a little confused and concerned as the guidelines stated we can submit to JOSS using a feature branch with our paper (instead of having it in the main branch), and I couldn’t find the reference for the need to put the author/affiliations in the readme file. I do have my affiliations in the citations file and in the paper PR the review is attached to. If needed, I can merge the paper PR into the main branch, I just wasn’t prepared to do so in case there were updates requested for the paper.

Thanks for flagging this @EdyVision. @gradvohl – we don't actually require authors to merge the paper into their main/default branch. This is actually why we support compiling the paper from a non-default branch. @EdyVision – I'm assuming you want the review to be of the code on the main branch though right?

[EdyVision]

Thank you for your review. I am a little confused and concerned as the guidelines stated we can submit to JOSS using a feature branch with our paper (instead of having it in the main branch), and I couldn’t find the reference for the need to put the author/affiliations in the readme file. I do have my affiliations in the citations file and in the paper PR the review is attached to. If needed, I can merge the paper PR into the main branch, I just wasn’t prepared to do so in case there were updates requested for the paper.

Thanks for flagging this @EdyVision. @gradvohl – we don't actually require authors to merge the paper into their main/default branch. This is actually why we support compiling the paper from a non-default branch. @EdyVision – I'm assuming you want the review to be of the code on the main branch though right?

Thanks for confirming, I was afraid I was missing requirements somewhere. Either branch is fine @arfon , I keep the PR branch up to date with main to prevent forcing folks to jump between them. I'll make sure all changes made to the source code continue to reflect in both for transparency. I may need help bumping the version associated in this review. It's presently at 0.4.4 instead of 0.4.3 as EditorialBot posted (wasn't sure how much of an impact that had but wanted to point it out).

Thank you both very much!

[gradvohl]

Hi @EdyVision,

Regarding the paper in the main branch, I apologize for my mistake. In fact, it is not a JOSS requirement and therefore there is no problem with it being in the alternate branch.

About the authors' names in the README.md file, I consider it important that your name is there. As a user, I think it is essential to know who is the author of that software and who is responsible for that code. I know that this information is in CITATION.cff, but I think it is critical to find this information quickly in README.md file.

In my view, similar reasoning applies to the community contributions guidelines. I know they are in the CONTRIBUTING.md file, but I think it is important that they are clear in the README.md file itself. Or at least a section in the README.md file that indicates that more information is in the CONTRIBUTING.md file.

Regarding the notebook in Google Collab, I saw that everything is implemented there. However, I am left with the question: which branch should I evaluate? The main or the joss-paper-submission? I haven't received any official information about this. If you or the Editor (@arfon) could be so kind as to tell me which branch I should analyze, it would help me a lot and save me time.

Regarding citations, the ones you cite in the README.md file -- Milne et al. (2016) and Schwartz and Solove (2012) -- should be referenced in the README.md itself. After all, if a user sees these citations, eventually he will want to look them up for more information.

Anyway, I don't know if I was able to answer your questions, but I remain at your disposal should you need further clarification.

[EdyVision]

Hi @EdyVision,

Regarding the paper in the main branch, I apologize for my mistake. In fact, it is not a JOSS requirement and therefore there is no problem with it being in the alternate branch.

About the authors' names in the README.md file, I consider it important that your name is there. As a user, I think it is essential to know who is the author of that software and who is responsible for that code. I know that this information is in CITATION.cff, but I think it is critical to find this information quickly in README.md file.

In my view, similar reasoning applies to the community contributions guidelines. I know they are in the CONTRIBUTING.md file, but I think it is important that they are clear in the README.md file itself. Or at least a section in the README.md file that indicates that more information is in the CONTRIBUTING.md file.

Regarding the notebook in Google Collab, I saw that everything is implemented there. However, I am left with the question: which branch should I evaluate? The main or the joss-paper-submission? I haven't received any official information about this. If you or the Editor (@arfon) could be so kind as to tell me which branch I should analyze, it would help me a lot and save me time.

Regarding citations, the ones you cite in the README.md file -- Milne et al. (2016) and Schwartz and Solove (2012) -- should be referenced in the README.md itself. After all, if a user sees these citations, eventually he will want to look them up for more information.

Anyway, I don't know if I was able to answer your questions, but I remain at your disposal should you need further clarification.

Ah thank you @gradvohl, this helps! Ok so in my next pushes, I'll add the author details and point them to the contributing.md doc regarding the guidelines and such. All citations in the README.md file should exist in the paper.md file presently, but I'll make sure that it is explicitly noted if not. I'll review the paper this evening regarding the problem space and any associated citations in case something is missing or requires expansion. The branch being evaluated is the joss-paper-submission one and it is kept with the most up to date changes. I appreciate your time, thank you for the feedback and clarifications. I'll get started on these smaller items ahead of the documentation updates.

[arfon]

👋 @tmickleydoyle – just checking in here to see how you're getting on?

[arfon]

Also, @EdyVision – do you have any updates on how you're getting on making updates based on @gradvohl's feedback?

[tmickleydoyle]

Hey! I have been OOO for the last couple weeks. This is on my agenda for next week 🤞

[EdyVision]

Also, @EdyVision – do you have any updates on how you're getting on making updates based on @gradvohl's feedback?

Hello @arfon I've actually committed the changes requested by @gradvohl and updated the branch to contain the elements. I know that the largest item was that, for some reason, it couldn't be tested on the host described, but I cannot reproduce this, so I expanded the readme to include more details for setup. As for the mentions of the other projects, I defend them in a few weeks, so I believe I'll be able to expose those projects soon. I'll need to get confirmation from my advisor. That item aside, we are on track with the changes requested, and they are available in the joss-paper-submission branch. I'm happy to expand on the items if needed.

Thanks!

[arfon]

Hey! I have been OOO for the last couple weeks. This is on my agenda for next week 🤞

⚡ thanks so much @tmickleydoyle!

[tmickleydoyle]

Review checklist for @tmickleydoyle

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/EdyVision/pii-codex?
• 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 (@EdyVision) 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?

[EdyVision]

Hello @EdyVision and @arfon ,

For my part, everything is ok now.

Congratulations on the work and the publication.

As for me, to paraphrase Phil Jackson (coach of the Chicago Bulls from 1989 to 1998), "... So I called it The Last Dance".

Farewell, JOSS 👋🏼. It was an interesting experience reviewing the papers.

Best regards.

Thank you @gradvohl

[arfon]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[arfon]

👋 @EdyVision – some suggested edits to your paper:

• Please define PII the first time it's used. I would suggest ideally in the title and the first paragraph of the body of the paper. If you don't want to change the title, then please define at the start of the main paper body.
• The West_2017 citation isn't rendering in the Statement of Need section.
• Suggestion to change utils to utilities in the first sentence of the Design section.

[arfon]

@EdyVision – Once you've made the suggested changes above, could you make a new release of this software that includes the changes that have resulted from this review. Then, please make an archive of the software in Zenodo/figshare/other service and update this thread with the DOI of the archive? For the Zenodo/figshare archive, please make sure that:

• The title of the archive is the same as the JOSS paper title
• That the authors of the archive are the same as the JOSS paper authors

I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

[EdyVision]

I can most certaily do that. I believe the archive is in Zenodo presently but I'll double check that the naming match. I'll ping you promptly.

[EdyVision]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[EdyVision]

@arfon I've confirmed the Zenodo title matches the paper title. For this reason, the title itself was not updated, but the first sentence in the summary, I made sure that PII is accompanied by personal identifiable information. In the design section, utils has been changed to utilities as requested, and the citation for West 2017 has been corrected as of this last proof.

Version bumped to 0.4.5 for official paper release, but due to file mismatch in citation.cff, 0.4.6 was created to allow Zenodo, GitHub release, and Pypi to match the versions.

GitHub:
(with release notes for paper): https://github.com/EdyVision/pii-codex/releases/tag/v0.4.5
(version match correction): https://github.com/EdyVision/pii-codex/releases/tag/v0.4.6
Pypi: https://pypi.org/project/pii-codex/
Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/record/8053039

Zenodo DOI for v0.4.4 (meant to be 0.4.5) (paper specific): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8053024
Zenodo DOI for v0.4.6 (version correction): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8053039

Zenodo DOI for all versions: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7170516

Thanks so much, everyone! The release was almost smooth minus the cff file mixup 😅

[tmickleydoyle]

Congrats! Nice work 🎉

[arfon]

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.8053039 as archive

[editorialbot]

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.8053039

[arfon]

@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

- 10.1111/joca.12111 is OK
- 10.1177/0007650317718185 is OK
- 10.1093/ct/qtz035 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7212576 is OK
- 10.6028/nist.sp.800-122 is OK
- 10.1145/3343038 is OK
- 10.4018/978-1-5225-8897-9.ch019 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.2307/41409971 may be a valid DOI for title: Privacy in the Digital Age: A Review of Information Privacy Research in Information Systems

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👋 @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#4323, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[arfon]

@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: Rosado
  given-names: Eidan J.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0665-098X"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8053039
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Rosado
    given-names: Eidan J.
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0665-098X"
  date-published: 2023-06-20
  doi: 10.21105/joss.05402
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 86
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 5402
  title: "PII-Codex: a Python library for PII detection, categorization,
    and severity assessment"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05402"
  volume: 8
title: "PII-Codex: a Python library for PII detection, categorization,
  and severity assessment"

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]

🐦🐦🐦 👉 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.05402 joss-papers#4325
1. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05402
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...

[EdyVision]

Congrats! Nice work 🎉

Thank you!

[EdyVision]

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.8053039 as archive

Thank you @arfon 🙏🏽

[arfon]

@gradvohl, @tmickleydoyle – many thanks for your reviews here! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you ✨

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

[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.05402/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05402)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05402">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05402/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05402/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05402

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