[PRE REVIEW]: Open-Source Pattern Creation Tool for Medical Extended Reality Image Quality Assessment #5798
Comments
editorialbot
added
pre-review
Track: 2 (BCM)
|
Hello human, 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 |
Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
added
the
query-scope
|
@brendanc490 thanks for this submission. I am the AEiC for this track and here to help process the initial steps. For the moment I've flagged this work for a scope review by our editorial board. In particular I need some help to see if this work conforms to what we class as research software. |
|
Hi Kevin,
This submission is coming on behalf of the FDA, so the tool is geared
towards regulatory science. We have developed a regulatory science tool
that enables the measurements of head-mounted display (HMD) quality by
creating customized scenes and patterns. This is in line with the
definition of regulatory science as it would fall under the creation of
tools for the assessment of the quality of FDA-related devices. This tool
in particular provides an easy way to display scenes on multiple headsets
so that we can assess and compare image quality. This is accomplished
through the use of known standardized patterns like the grille or dot array
and simple entities like circles, rectangles, or triangles. This
flexibility allows for the conduction of targeted examinations of specific
display characteristics. For instance, we can create and share packages
that are designed to assess display resolution, chromatic aberrations,
color mapping, and other spatiotemporal effects. This tool also addresses
the issue of pattern portability. Currently, HMDs are very heterogeneous,
making it difficult to deploy the same pattern to multiple headsets. This
barrier often comes up in standards meetings as an impeding force on the
development and validation of different HMDs. In short, this tool provides
scientists, medical device manufacturers, and regulators access to a
centralized scene to test various display devices and provide reports that
are easier to understand and, most importantly, replicate. Our goal was to
have a referenceable tool that we could use to guide manufacturers or
scientists when asking for specific image quality measurements on new VR/AR
devices.
Also, the paper has been updated to include this information. Let me know
if you have any further comments or questions.
Thanks,
Brendan
…On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 11:55 AM Kevin Mattheus Moerman < ***@***.***> wrote:
@brendanc490 <https://github.com/brendanc490> thanks for this submission.
I am the AEiC for this track and here to help process the initial steps.
For the moment I've flagged this work for a scope review by our editorial
board. In particular I need some help to see if this work conforms to what
we class as research software.
The paper mentions that patterns created through the website could serve
to help "approve devices for medical use". This could be an important
application. However this functionality does not make it research software.
Could you help provide some comments here as to how you think your software
would be used in scientific research? It would help if what you describe
paints a clear picture as to why this work is important to scientific
research, i.e. such that one would feel the need to cite it in a subsequent
paper. Utility tools are typically not cited, and do not require a paper.
However software that has a direct impact on scientific findings would
definitely need to be cited.
As you address this query, you may also decide to amend your paper and
statement of need section on the research applications of this work.
Thanks.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#5798 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQJNVRANTQ4PBVEPKTWPTJ3XYX2WTANCNFSM6AAAAAA4IJ6KIU>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
@brendanc490 – could you also explain how this repository is structured? I'm seeing a lot of JavaScript which I think is the bulk of the software contribution here? On quick inspection, it's not clear how to test the software. Could you explain how that is accomplished here? |
|
I’d be happy to describe the repository. We submitted under the
JOSS-Submission branch. The tool we are submitting is the Custom Pattern
Creation Tool located in the "Custom" folder. It draws functionality from
the Compatibility tool to interface with virtual reality controllers and
headsets, which is also included in the "Compatibility" folder. The
majority of work was done in JavaScript as you pointed out, though there is
some HTML and CSS work. This encompasses everything except for the contents
of the "lib" folder which contains code libraries used in the project.
Upon opening the "Custom" folder you will see a readme containing detailed
steps on how to test the tool. We opted for manual tests since the tool is
focused on providing a user interface. The tests given highlight all the
core functionalities of the tool including creating, editing, saving, and
sharing a pattern.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Brendan
…On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 5:03 AM Arfon Smith ***@***.***> wrote:
@brendanc490 <https://github.com/brendanc490> – could you also explain
how this repository is structured? I'm seeing a lot of JavaScript which I
think is the bulk of the software contribution here?
On quick inspection, it's not clear how to test the software. Could you
explain how that is accomplished here?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#5798 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQJNVRAZZDCFWYBMA6FMYFDX5J7MNANCNFSM6AAAAAA4IJ6KIU>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
removed
the
query-scope
|
@brendanc490 I am pleased to inform you that this work has passed our initial scope review. We will now proceed to find a handling editor. |
|
@editorialbot invite @osorensen as editor |
|
Invitation to edit this submission sent! |
|
@editorialbot assign @osorensen as editor |
|
Assigned! @osorensen is now the editor |
|
👋 @codeling, @ionlights, @jackbrookes, would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html |
|
Yes I can review the submission! |
|
@editorialbot add @codeling as reviewer |
|
@codeling added to the reviewers list! |
|
First quick remark: It seems that the used license (CC0-1.0) is not OSI-approved. |
|
Thanks a lot for pointing this out @codeling. I'll check this further with the editorial team and see how we proceed. |
|
@brendanc490, as pointed out by @codeling, the license CC0-1.0 is not OSI approved. Since this is a requirement for JOSS submissions, we cannot review this submission unless you change to an OSI approved license. Please let us know in this thread whether you change the license. If so, we can proceed with the review. |
|
@brendanc490, have you decided whether you will change the license or withdraw the publication? |
|
We have decided to change the license to The Unlicense. This has been
updated in the repository.
…On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 9:44 AM Øystein Sørensen ***@***.***> wrote:
@brendanc490 <https://github.com/brendanc490>, have you decided whether
you will change the license or withdraw the publication?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#5798 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQJNVRHLYGD2ASOW35RPXQ3X7U25PAVCNFSM6AAAAAA4IJ6KIWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTONRUGUYTOMJXGI>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
Thanks @brendanc490, then I'll continue looking for another reviewer. |
|
👋 @kyq, @sandeepchowdary7, would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html |
|
@editorialbot generate pdf |
|
Five most similar historical JOSS papers: Virtual Scanner: MRI on a Browser Open Source Optical Coherence Tomography Software open_iA: A tool for processing and visual analysis of industrial computed tomography datasets Reel1.0 - A visualization tool for evaluating powder diffraction refinements DetectorChecker: analyzing patterns of defects in detector screens |
|
👋 @imr-framework, would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html |
|
👋 @tomaslaz, would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html |
|
@brendanc490, I have a hard time finding a second reviewer for this submission. Do you have any suggestions for potential reviewers? |
|
Unfortunately, I don't have any suggestions for you. What is the best way
to proceed?
…On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 4:52 AM Øystein Sørensen ***@***.***> wrote:
@brendanc490 <https://github.com/brendanc490>, I have a hard time finding
a second reviewer for this submission. Do you have any suggestions for
potential reviewers?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#5798 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQJNVRAFTX73WAY7E3YOWRTYBNY4BAVCNFSM6AAAAAA4IJ6KIWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTOOBSGU2DIMZZGM>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
@brendanc490, I'll add myself as a reviewer, so that we can proceed. |
|
@editorialbot add @osorensen as reviewer |
|
@osorensen added to the reviewers list! |
|
@editorialbot start review |
|
OK, I've started the review over in #6021. |
Submitting author: @brendanc490 (Brendan Collins)
Repository: https://github.com/DIDSR/WebXR-tools.git
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): JOSS-Submission
Version: v1.0
Editor: @osorensen
Reviewers: @codeling, @osorensen
Managing EiC: George K. Thiruvathukal
Status
Status badge code:
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @brendanc490. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
@brendanc490 if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.
Editor instructions
The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: