New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[REVIEW]: A Java Library for Itemset Mining with Choco-solver #5654
Comments
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:
For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
|
|
Wordcount for |
|
@skadio and @jgFages - Thanks for agreeing to review this submission. As you can see above, you each should use the command 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, reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if either of you require some more time. We can also use editorialbot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time. Please feel free to ping me (@danielskatz) if you have any questions/concerns. |
reminder to self: @skadio said when accepting this review "I might take some time (~8 weeks)." |
Review checklist for @jgFagesConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
Data Mining with Constraint Programming is indeed an interesting topic of Research. I have however a few remarks regarding both the paper and the software :
Minor : |
Review checklist for @skadioConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
@ChaVer congratulations on your IJCAI'22 paper and turning it into a library. This submission is clearly relevant to JOSS and almost there in terms of publication, with a few suggestions that needs to be accounted for:
The current readme is not in sync with the wiki. A user looking at the Readme would not understand that this is a "library" which was my main confusion initially. It almost seems like a standalone command line tool, which is not the case here, it is indeed a library. Even worse, it first looked like a repo to me to reproduce the experiments from the IJCAI'22 paper. Compared to that; the Wiki does a much better job. https://gitlab.com/chaver/data-mining/-/wikis/home My recommendation is creating a lean / subset of the Wiki to replace the current Readme. You can cite the IJCAI paper at top but push the commentary about reproducing experiments to the bottom (or better, leave in a section in the detailed Wiki). My major concern about the paper is: I am not sure if an outsider would immediately understand what are these constraints are. Currently the in the Readme, the constraints are listed under "Installation" which is not right. My recommendation is: create a specific section in the README for this and mimic what's in the Wiki. I almost tempted to say use the Wiki as the Readme. The paper does an adequate job of description the tasks (like, what is skypattern mining) but the Readme and Wiki don't do that. My overall comment is:
where the ultimate goal is, once this is published in JOSS, an informed outsider (not a pattern mining expert) can leverage your library. You have all this material across the Paper, Readme, and Wiki but need to refresh the Readme and Wiki with a lens to cater to an outsider. The example in the paper is great so I would highly suggest adding a "Quick Start Example" to the very top of the README.
Hope this helps you improve your submission. Serdar |
Happy to take another quick look once you update the library |
@editorialbot commands |
Hello @ChaVer, here are the things you can ask me to do:
|
@editorialbot check references |
|
@editorialbot check references |
|
@editorialbot generate pdf |
Dear reviewers, Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions for improving both the paper and the library. @jgFages :
@skadio :
|
@ChaVer thank you for the updates! The readme is much improved now, and better reflects the power of the tool to an interested user now. Same for the manuscript. My only final comment would the order of sections in the readme. Currently, it starts with the Architecture, Installation, and then the Illustrative Example, and Documents. Why not bring the Example to the top? So in my mind, you have the intro (as a reader I am thinking, what does this tool do?), the example (show me how it looks), installation (example is cool, how can I use this?), and documentation (where do I go to with questions and more details). Small change, but I think it would help you. @danielskatz this is good to go from my side. |
@ChaVer - https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8263971 does seem to work. Can you share the URL to the archive so that I can take a look at it that way for now? |
@danielskatz the url of the archive is https://zenodo.org/record/8263971 |
I guess there's something slow in zenodo/datacite today - I'll check again in a few hours |
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.8263971 as archive |
Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.8263971 |
@editorialbot recommend-accept This will generate the version I'll proofread |
|
|
👋 @openjournals/csism-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published. Check final proof 👉📄 Download article If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#4495, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command |
@ChaVer - I've suggested some minor changes in https://gitlab.com/chaver/choco-mining/-/merge_requests/4 - please merge this, or let me know what you disagree with. Also, I'm unsure of the inconsistency between "Choco Solver" and "Choco-solver" as both are used in various places in the paper. |
@danielskatz I've just accepted the merge request. I've also updated the paper to replace "Choco Solver" with "Choco-solver". Should I also update the title of the paper ? |
I think that updating the title as well would make sense |
I've just updated the paper with the new title. |
@editorialbot recommend-accept |
|
|
👋 @openjournals/csism-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published. Check final proof 👉📄 Download article If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#4496, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command |
@editorialbot accept |
|
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
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. |
🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘 |
🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨 Here's what you must now do:
Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team... |
🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉 If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:
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:
|
Thank you @skadio and @jgFages for your reviews and @danielskatz for your help. |
Submitting author: @ChaVer (Charles Vernerey)
Repository: https://gitlab.com/chaver/choco-mining
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.0.2
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewers: @skadio, @jgFages
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8263971
Status
Status badge code:
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
@skadio & @jgFages, 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:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @danielskatz 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 @jgFages
📝 Checklist for @skadio
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: