[REVIEW]: Software Design and User Interface of ESPnet-SE++: Speech Enhancement for Robust Speech Processing #5403

editorialbot · 2023-04-23T19:05:16Z

Submitting author: @neillu23 (Yen-Ju Lu)
Repository: https://github.com/espnet/espnet
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v.202310
Editor: @faroit
Reviewers: @joimort, @justusschock
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10048174

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f518d0b78a29ab6521936834e5d90ef1"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f518d0b78a29ab6521936834e5d90ef1/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f518d0b78a29ab6521936834e5d90ef1/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f518d0b78a29ab6521936834e5d90ef1)

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

@joimort & @justusschock, 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 @faroit 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 @justusschock

📝 Checklist for @joimort

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

editorialbot · 2023-04-23T19:05:17Z

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 · 2023-04-23T19:06:17Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=3.74 s (1008.8 files/s, 125748.1 lines/s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                      files          blank        comment           code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                         1244          33140          36882         174020
Bourne Shell                   1103          19396          13931          91530
YAML                           1038           3985           5721          40970
Markdown                        269           5849              0          22512
JSON                              3              0              0           8675
Perl                             71            869           1858           5629
MATLAB                           14            411            490           1691
diff                             13             49            406           1075
make                              2             53             19            206
CMake                             1             40             39            169
TeX                               1             22              0            156
Bourne Again Shell                5             23              6             73
Cython                            1             10              3             36
DOS Batch                         1              8              1             27
reStructuredText                  5             25             38             20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           3771          63880          59394         346789
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot · 2023-04-23T19:06:37Z

Wordcount for paper.md is 1359

editorialbot · 2023-04-23T19:07:18Z

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1109/slt48900.2021.9383615 may be a valid DOI for title: ESPnet-SE: End-to-end speech enhancement and separation toolkit designed for ASR integration
- 10.21437/interspeech.2022-10727 may be a valid DOI for title: ESPnet-SE++: Speech Enhancement for Robust Speech Recognition, Translation, and Understanding
- 10.1109/icassp40776.2020.9053512 may be a valid DOI for title: ESPnet-TTS: Unified, reproducible, and integratable open source end-to-end text-to-speech toolkit
- 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-demos.34 may be a valid DOI for title: ESPnet-ST: All-in-One Speech Translation Toolkit
- 10.1109/icassp43922.2022.9747674 may be a valid DOI for title: ESPnet-SLU: Advancing spoken language understanding through ESPnet
- 10.21437/interspeech.2018-1456 may be a valid DOI for title: ESPnet: End-to-End Speech Processing Toolkit
- 10.21437/interspeech.2020-1673 may be a valid DOI for title: Asteroid: the PyTorch-based audio source separation toolkit for researchers
- 10.1109/icassp40776.2020.9054266 may be a valid DOI for title: Dual-path rnn: efficient long sequence modeling for time-domain single-channel speech separation
- 10.1109/icassp.2018.8462116 may be a valid DOI for title: Tasnet: time-domain audio separation network for real-time, single-channel speech separation
- 10.1109/taslp.2019.2915167 may be a valid DOI for title: Conv-tasnet: Surpassing ideal time–frequency magnitude masking for speech separation
- 10.1109/icassp.2019.8683855 may be a valid DOI for title: SDR–half-baked or well done?
- 10.1109/icassp.2001.941023 may be a valid DOI for title: Perceptual evaluation of speech quality (PESQ)-a new method for speech quality assessment of telephone networks and codecs
- 10.1109/icassp.2017.7952154 may be a valid DOI for title: Permutation invariant training of deep models for speaker-independent multi-talker speech separation

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-04-23T19:07:30Z

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

justusschock · 2023-05-03T10:35:21Z

Review checklist for @justusschock

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/espnet/espnet?
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 (@neillu23) 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?

justusschock · 2023-05-03T10:56:57Z

@faroit @neillu23 I completed my review and I recommend the paper for publication. I did not (yet) check the quality of writing box as I the layout of the paper (with the big figures on pages 3-7) doesn't look too good. I'd recommend to either change the formatting there or find another way to present the information. From the wording and language itself, the paper is fine though.

faroit · 2023-05-13T12:01:25Z

@justusschock thanks for your review. Can you please add an issue to the repo so that we can track it back here?

@neillu23 i agree with @justusschock that this could be improved

faroit · 2023-05-13T12:04:00Z

@joimort We are typically aiming for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 week. So please let me know if you need any help.

neillu23 · 2023-05-13T16:51:07Z

@justusschock @faroit I appreciate your review! I plan to create a pull request to make changes to the figure. Should I proceed with it immediately or should I wait for the results of the other review?

joimort · 2023-05-17T18:40:33Z

Review checklist for @joimort

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/espnet/espnet?
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 (@neillu23) 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?

joimort · 2023-05-18T08:15:34Z

Thanks for your submission, @neillu23! The software and documentation meets all the criteria of the JOSS. Also, the accompanying paper is generally well-written. It provides a comprehensive view of the technology.

However, I do have a few recommendations that could enhance readability and clarity. For instance, the section "ESPNet-SE++ Recipes for SSE and Joint-Task" commences with a screenshot of the folder structure, which can be somewhat confusing for readers. As suggested by @justusschock, it would be better to present this information in a different way. The textual content contained in the figures on pages 2-7 could be transformed into straightforward text, which would be easier to understand. For the exact structure of the folders, perhaps the authors could refer the reader to the respective README files for further clarification.

Figures throughout the manuscript are not numbered, which could potentially lead to confusion. It is unclear whether this is a JOSS requirement, so the authors might want to consult the JOSS guidelines regarding this matter. Specifically, the figures on pages 7 and 9 possess two titles, adding to the ambiguity.

Some other minor imperfections: In terms of the code examples provided on pages 11 and 12, it is unclear why the code is highlighted. A minor formatting issue was noticed in lines 154/155, where a link appears to be improperly formatted due to a line break. Lastly, there are a two points related to citations that need to be addressed. In line 198, the authors reference "Asteroid" but cite it with the arXiv version (published at Interspeech). Similarly, the conference name, Interspeech, is missing in line 217.

These recommendations are intended to further enhance the quality of this already solid manuscript. The ESPnet-SE++ is an exciting piece of software, and this paper does a good job of presenting it to the community.

faroit · 2023-05-19T14:57:24Z

@joimort thanks for your review. @neillu23 can you include the reviewers suggestions (if you agree), update the paper and report back here when that is done? thanks

neillu23 · 2023-05-20T05:26:53Z

Thanks to the review from @justusschock and @joimort ! Your feedback is truly appreciated and we'll thoughtfully integrate your suggestions into the paper. Once we have made the revisions, we will send you an updated version and let you know. Additionally, thanks to the assistance from @faroit !

faroit · 2023-06-01T12:37:03Z

@neillu23 can you let us know about the status of the revision?

neillu23 · 2023-06-01T16:52:55Z

Hi @faroit , at present, I'm in the process of transforming pictures into text and making a new README.md file to minimize the requirement for explaining folder paths inside the document. I expect to complete these activities and make a PR by the end of this weekend. Many thanks!

neillu23 · 2023-06-05T04:37:30Z

I have submitted a PR at espnet/espnet#5212 to address the feedback from the reviewers. The modifications made are as follows:

Instead of including configuration figures, we have provided links to the configuration file along with brief explanations.
The figure illustrating the directory structure for the Joint-task has been relocated to a separate readme file "TEMPLATE/enh_asr/README.md."
Add captions for figures and remove redundant titles for the UML diagrams.
The conference details in the citations have been updated.
The formatting problem with the links has been resolved.

I will notify you once the PR is merged. Thank you very much!

neillu23 · 2023-06-25T10:59:45Z

Hello @faroit , I wanted to let you know that the PR(espnet/espnet#5212) has been successfully merged! I apologize for the delay in completing it.

faroit · 2023-06-29T21:23:42Z

@neillu23 thats great. Thanks for letting me know.

@justusschock can you let us know about the status of your review? is there something left to do for @neillu23?

justusschock · 2023-06-30T09:08:53Z

@editorialbot commands

editorialbot · 2023-06-30T09:08:56Z

Hello @justusschock, 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

justusschock · 2023-06-30T09:09:29Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

neillu23 · 2023-10-30T17:28:12Z

Hello @faroit , I appreciate your acceptance of the paper and the guidance you've provided! I've submitted a PR to address the issue and clean up unused references in the paper.bib. Would you be able to review it and see if it's right? Thanks again!

faroit · 2023-10-30T22:50:31Z

@editorialbot check references

faroit · 2023-10-30T22:50:56Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2023-10-30T22:51:18Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/slt48900.2021.9383615 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2016.7471631 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2017.7952155 is OK
- 10.21437/interspeech.2020-2537 is OK
- 10.1109/taslp.2021.3082318 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp43922.2022.9746372 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp43922.2022.9746171 is OK
- 10.21437/interspeech.2019-1550 is OK
- 10.1109/asru46091.2019.9003849 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp43922.2022.9747146 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2018.8462116 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2019.8683855 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp39728.2021.9414661 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp43922.2022.9747473 is OK
- 10.21437/interspeech.2022-10727 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp40776.2020.9053512 is OK
- 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-demos.34 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp43922.2022.9747674 is OK
- 10.21437/interspeech.2018-1456 is OK
- 10.1163/1872-9037_afco_asc_1322 is OK
- 10.21437/interspeech.2020-1673 is OK
- 10.15199/48.2016.11.70 is OK
- 10.1109/tasl.2011.2114881 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2001.941023 is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2014.80 is OK
- 10.1145/2792745.2792775 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

faroit · 2023-10-30T22:51:36Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2023-10-30T22:51:38Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2023-10-30T22:52:23Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/slt48900.2021.9383615 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2016.7471631 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2017.7952155 is OK
- 10.21437/interspeech.2020-2537 is OK
- 10.1109/taslp.2021.3082318 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp43922.2022.9746372 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp43922.2022.9746171 is OK
- 10.21437/interspeech.2019-1550 is OK
- 10.1109/asru46091.2019.9003849 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp43922.2022.9747146 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2018.8462116 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2019.8683855 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp39728.2021.9414661 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp43922.2022.9747473 is OK
- 10.21437/interspeech.2022-10727 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp40776.2020.9053512 is OK
- 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-demos.34 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp43922.2022.9747674 is OK
- 10.21437/interspeech.2018-1456 is OK
- 10.1163/1872-9037_afco_asc_1322 is OK
- 10.21437/interspeech.2020-1673 is OK
- 10.15199/48.2016.11.70 is OK
- 10.1109/tasl.2011.2114881 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2001.941023 is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2014.80 is OK
- 10.1145/2792745.2792775 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-10-30T22:54:05Z

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

editorialbot · 2023-10-30T22:54:25Z

⚠️ Error preparing paper acceptance.

faroit · 2023-11-17T12:14:45Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2023-11-17T12:14:47Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2023-11-17T12:15:46Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/slt48900.2021.9383615 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2016.7471631 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2017.7952155 is OK
- 10.21437/interspeech.2020-2537 is OK
- 10.1109/taslp.2021.3082318 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp43922.2022.9746372 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp43922.2022.9746171 is OK
- 10.21437/interspeech.2019-1550 is OK
- 10.1109/asru46091.2019.9003849 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp43922.2022.9747146 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2018.8462116 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2019.8683855 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp39728.2021.9414661 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp43922.2022.9747473 is OK
- 10.21437/interspeech.2022-10727 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp40776.2020.9053512 is OK
- 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-demos.34 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp43922.2022.9747674 is OK
- 10.21437/interspeech.2018-1456 is OK
- 10.1163/1872-9037_afco_asc_1322 is OK
- 10.21437/interspeech.2020-1673 is OK
- 10.15199/48.2016.11.70 is OK
- 10.1109/tasl.2011.2114881 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2001.941023 is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2014.80 is OK
- 10.1145/2792745.2792775 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-11-17T12:17:07Z

⚠️ Error preparing paper acceptance.

arfon · 2023-11-17T15:00:52Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2023-11-17T15:00:55Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2023-11-17T15:01:51Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/slt48900.2021.9383615 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2016.7471631 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2017.7952155 is OK
- 10.21437/interspeech.2020-2537 is OK
- 10.1109/taslp.2021.3082318 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp43922.2022.9746372 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp43922.2022.9746171 is OK
- 10.21437/interspeech.2019-1550 is OK
- 10.1109/asru46091.2019.9003849 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp43922.2022.9747146 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2018.8462116 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2019.8683855 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp39728.2021.9414661 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp43922.2022.9747473 is OK
- 10.21437/interspeech.2022-10727 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp40776.2020.9053512 is OK
- 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-demos.34 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp43922.2022.9747674 is OK
- 10.21437/interspeech.2018-1456 is OK
- 10.1163/1872-9037_afco_asc_1322 is OK
- 10.21437/interspeech.2020-1673 is OK
- 10.15199/48.2016.11.70 is OK
- 10.1109/tasl.2011.2114881 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2001.941023 is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2014.80 is OK
- 10.1145/2792745.2792775 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-11-17T15:04:25Z

👋 @openjournals/sbcs-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#4790, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

oliviaguest · 2023-11-20T17:34:32Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2023-11-20T17:34:34Z

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

editorialbot · 2023-11-20T17:37:22Z

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: Lu
  given-names: Yen-Ju
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8400-4188"
- family-names: Chang
  given-names: Xuankai
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5221-5412"
- family-names: Li
  given-names: Chenda
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0299-9914"
- family-names: Zhang
  given-names: Wangyou
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4500-3515"
- family-names: Cornell
  given-names: Samuele
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5358-1844"
- family-names: Ni
  given-names: Zhaoheng
- family-names: Masuyama
  given-names: Yoshiki
- family-names: Yan
  given-names: Brian
- family-names: Scheibler
  given-names: Robin
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5205-8365"
- family-names: Wang
  given-names: Zhong-Qiu
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4204-9430"
- family-names: Tsao
  given-names: Yu
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6956-0418"
- family-names: Qian
  given-names: Yanmin
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0314-3790"
- family-names: Watanabe
  given-names: Shinji
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5970-8631"
contact:
- family-names: Watanabe
  given-names: Shinji
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5970-8631"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10048174
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Lu
    given-names: Yen-Ju
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8400-4188"
  - family-names: Chang
    given-names: Xuankai
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5221-5412"
  - family-names: Li
    given-names: Chenda
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0299-9914"
  - family-names: Zhang
    given-names: Wangyou
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4500-3515"
  - family-names: Cornell
    given-names: Samuele
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5358-1844"
  - family-names: Ni
    given-names: Zhaoheng
  - family-names: Masuyama
    given-names: Yoshiki
  - family-names: Yan
    given-names: Brian
  - family-names: Scheibler
    given-names: Robin
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5205-8365"
  - family-names: Wang
    given-names: Zhong-Qiu
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4204-9430"
  - family-names: Tsao
    given-names: Yu
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6956-0418"
  - family-names: Qian
    given-names: Yanmin
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0314-3790"
  - family-names: Watanabe
    given-names: Shinji
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5970-8631"
  date-published: 2023-11-20
  doi: 10.21105/joss.05403
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 91
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 5403
  title: "Software Design and User Interface of ESPnet-SE++: Speech
    Enhancement for Robust Speech Processing"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05403"
  volume: 8
title: "Software Design and User Interface of ESPnet-SE++: Speech
  Enhancement for Robust Speech Processing"

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

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

editorialbot · 2023-11-20T17:37:26Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2023-11-20T17:37:27Z

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

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.05403 joss-papers#4793
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05403
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

oliviaguest · 2023-11-20T17:49:52Z

Huge thanks to the editor: @faroit and reviewers: @joimort, @justusschock! ✨ JOSS appreciates your work and effort. ✨ Also, big congratulations to the authors @neillu23! 🥳 🍾

editorialbot · 2023-11-20T17:49:54Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.05403/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05403)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05403">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05403/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05403/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05403

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

neillu23 · 2023-11-25T01:16:14Z

@oliviaguest, much appreciation! Immense gratitude towards @faroit, @joimort, and @justusschock for all the great help!

editorialbot added Dockerfile Python review Shell Track: 4 (SBCS) Social, Behavioral, and Cognitive Sciences labels Apr 23, 2023

editorialbot assigned faroit Apr 23, 2023

editorialbot mentioned this issue Apr 23, 2023

[PRE REVIEW]: Software Design and User Interface of ESPnet-SE++: Speech Enhancement for Robust Speech Processing #4746

Closed

justusschock mentioned this issue May 13, 2023

JOSS Review: Paper formatting espnet/espnet#5169

Open

neillu23 mentioned this issue Oct 30, 2023

Updated the reference of the accepted JOSS paper espnet/espnet#5515

Merged

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Nov 17, 2023

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Nov 20, 2023

oliviaguest closed this as completed Nov 20, 2023

[REVIEW]: Software Design and User Interface of ESPnet-SE++: Speech Enhancement for Robust Speech Processing #5403

[REVIEW]: Software Design and User Interface of ESPnet-SE++: Speech Enhancement for Robust Speech Processing #5403

Comments

editorialbot commented Apr 23, 2023 • edited

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Apr 23, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 23, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 23, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 23, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 23, 2023

justusschock commented May 3, 2023 • edited

Review checklist for @justusschock

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

justusschock commented May 3, 2023

faroit commented May 13, 2023

faroit commented May 13, 2023

neillu23 commented May 13, 2023

joimort commented May 17, 2023 • edited

Review checklist for @joimort

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

joimort commented May 18, 2023

faroit commented May 19, 2023

neillu23 commented May 20, 2023

faroit commented Jun 1, 2023

neillu23 commented Jun 1, 2023

neillu23 commented Jun 5, 2023

neillu23 commented Jun 25, 2023

faroit commented Jun 29, 2023

justusschock commented Jun 30, 2023

editorialbot commented Jun 30, 2023

justusschock commented Jun 30, 2023

neillu23 commented Oct 30, 2023

faroit commented Oct 30, 2023

faroit commented Oct 30, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 30, 2023

faroit commented Oct 30, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 30, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 30, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 30, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 30, 2023

faroit commented Nov 17, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 17, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 17, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 17, 2023

arfon commented Nov 17, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 17, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 17, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 17, 2023

oliviaguest commented Nov 20, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 20, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 20, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 20, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 20, 2023

oliviaguest commented Nov 20, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 20, 2023

neillu23 commented Nov 25, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 23, 2023 •

edited

justusschock commented May 3, 2023 •

edited

joimort commented May 17, 2023 •

edited