[REVIEW]: netroles: A Java library for role equivalence analysis in networks #5903

editorialbot · 2023-09-30T23:03:10Z

Submitting author: @muellerj2 (Julian Müller)
Repository: https://github.com/muellerj2/netroles
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper
Version: v1.0
Editor: @fboehm
Reviewers: @leifeld, @abhishektiwari
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10070537

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/25baade4e135d543323f41e8eb7212ab"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/25baade4e135d543323f41e8eb7212ab/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/25baade4e135d543323f41e8eb7212ab/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/25baade4e135d543323f41e8eb7212ab)

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

@leifeld & @abhishektiwari, 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 @fboehm 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 @abhishektiwari

📝 Checklist for @leifeld

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

editorialbot · 2023-09-30T23:03:12Z

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 · 2023-09-30T23:03:14Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.73 s (624.5 files/s, 138264.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Java                           418           8443          23604          61538
XML                             12              0              5           5001
Markdown                         4            253              0            885
Gradle                          13             82             18            608
TeX                              1             26              0            278
JSON                             1              0              0            118
Bourne Shell                     1             28            115            105
SVG                              2              0              2             83
YAML                             3              7              6             78
DOS Batch                        1             21              2             69
TOML                             1              3              0             17
AsciiDoc                         1              1              0              2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           458           8864          23752          68782
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot · 2023-09-30T23:03:17Z

Wordcount for paper.md is 1126

editorialbot · 2023-09-30T23:03:20Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.18637/jss.v024.i06 is OK
- 10.1007/3-540-45848-4_47 is OK
- 10.1111/bmsp.12192 is OK
- 10.1016/0378-8733(94)90010-8 is OK
- 10.1016/0378-8733(92)90006-S is OK
- 10.2307/270991 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-18638-7_4 is OK
- 10.1016/0378-8733(95)00286-3 is OK
- 10.1080/0022250X.1990.9990067 is OK
- 10.1080/0022250X.1971.9989788 is OK
- 10.1016/j.socnet.2021.02.001 is OK
- 10.6084/m9.figshare.1164194 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04987 is OK
- 10.1016/j.socnet.2022.02.001 is OK
- 10.2307/270911 is OK
- 10.1016/0378-8733(83)90025-4 is OK
- 10.1016/j.socnet.2006.04.002 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-09-30T23:04:54Z

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

abhishektiwari · 2023-09-30T23:25:32Z

Review checklist for @abhishektiwari

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/muellerj2/netroles?
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 (@muellerj2) 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?

fboehm · 2023-10-17T13:49:49Z

@leifeld - please feel free to create your checklist in this thread. You can do so by following the instructions above. Please let me know if you have any questions.

@abhishektiwari - how is the review proceeding? do you have any questions yet? please feel free to post comments here in this thread. You should also feel free to link comments here to open issues in the submission repository. You can open new issues in the submission repository, too.

abhishektiwari · 2023-10-17T18:28:24Z

@fboehm I will have my initial feedback in by Friday.

fboehm · 2023-10-17T19:17:22Z

@fboehm I will have my initial feedback in by Friday.

Thank you, @abhishektiwari! If you encounter any difficulties or have questions, please let me know in this thread. Thanks again!

abhishektiwari · 2023-10-21T17:43:03Z

@muellerj2 Please see my initial feedback. I am still working to verify the functional claims of the software.

General checks

Substantial scholarly effort

netroles is relatively new software with GitHub project age just over 3 months, 40 GitHub commits, 101991 LOC, and GitHub commit history starting from Jul 23, 2023.

Project meets borderline well-established software project criteria established by JOSS. Need additional confirmation from author.

— Age of software on GitHub is just over 3 months, although it seems software was imported from somewhere else (first commit)
— Software is used to perform an analysis for a peer revived paper published by Müller & Brandes (2022)
— Total lines of code (LOC) 101991 including, Java LOC 93566.
— 40+ commits on GitHub
— Based on software review, software is useful and is likely used by others for their research

@mullerj2 can you confirm how long software has been under active development before publishing to GitHub?

Documentation

Functionality documentation

Although software is documented to a satisfactory level, for a Java package API documentation is scattered between DESIGN.md and USAGE.md and not very structured. Using an API documentation generator like Javadoc or something similar is strongly recommended. It seems author is already using Javadoc comments, so it should be easier to generate. Or maybe they are generating Javadoc but not published it yet (1).

Software paper

Quality of writing

formalizations of the concepts or formalization of the concepts. Later is grammatically correct.

leifeld · 2023-10-23T18:22:09Z

Review checklist for @leifeld

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/muellerj2/netroles?
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 (@muellerj2) 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?

Additional comments

Well done, I find the repository to be in very good shape, with the USAGE.md and DESIGN.md files giving all necessary information.

The paper itself feels like it lacks more examples and a conclusion, but I guess that's the desired format at JOSS, and it would only duplicate the USAGE.md file anyway and potentially go beyond the word limit.

I agree with the other reviewer's issue regarding linking the javadoc files in the documentation (likely in the USAGE.md file).

I added one issue regarding a minor documentation glitch but found the documentation to be in good shape otherwise.

One question I have is whether @muellerj2 wrote all the code or if the co-author on the Social Networks paper or any of the other visone authors contributed anything. I am just asking for a confirmation because the prior commit history before the GitHub repo was created is not visible and because the java paths include visone3. I know @muellerj2 is the main author of visone at this point but just wanted to double-check in line with the review check list.

The functional programming style is neat.

I look forward to seeing more applied research using this package.

leifeld · 2023-10-23T19:11:46Z

@fboehm Will I need to do anything else?

fboehm · 2023-10-25T23:54:27Z

@leifeld - Thank you so much for the thorough and helpful review!

It would be great if you can review the author's responses to your comments to ensure that the concerns are fully addressed before the submission is published.

However, there are no tasks right now that need your immediate attention.

fboehm · 2023-10-25T23:56:00Z

Thank you, @abhishektiwari for the constructive review!
@muellerj2 - do you have any questions about the issues that the reviewers have raised?

Thanks!

muellerj2 · 2023-10-26T15:24:26Z

@abhishektiwari

Regarding substantive scholarly effort:

It is the case that this was extracted from another repository. I probably wrote the first pieces of code for role analysis that developed into the core of this library around the end of 2016, when I started working on role equivalences as the topic of my PhD, and have kept developing and extending it since then because I needed it for my academic work, some of which has been published (in 2019 and 2022) and some of which still needs to be. The design of the user API went through some revisions, but had mostly taken its current form in the style of functional programming by early 2020.

Originally, I wrote the role equivalence functionality with the intention to make it a module of a larger general-purpose network analysis library, which was supposed to be made open source in the future. However, all other modules are not in a publishable state and their development has been stalled for years. By now, I have to objectively say the original project is essentially abandoned (although I'm not ready yet to give up on it completely). So I extracted the role analysis module from this larger repository to publish it on GitHub, omitting everything which is unusable or not practically relevant to perform role equivalence analysis, and the outcome is this library.

abhishektiwari · 2023-10-26T15:42:24Z

Thank you for additional context @muellerj2.

muellerj2 · 2023-10-26T16:01:14Z

@leifeld

The paper itself feels like it lacks more examples and a conclusion, but I guess that's the desired format at JOSS, and it would only duplicate the USAGE.md file anyway and potentially go beyond the word limit.

My impression is that papers on R packages in JOSS often contain usage examples. But before I made the paper submission, I checked the published papers on Java libraries and applications in JOSS, and I only found a single paper containing a code example among all of them, and this code example wasn't any longer than the small example in my paper. I guess the issue is that Java needs more boilerplate and is more wordy than a dynamic language like R, so it makes the paper even longer and almost impossible to include a full code example without exceeding the word limit.

The paper has already reached the word limit, which means any addition of usage examples would substantially exceed it. So I guess it will have to be @fboehm's call whether some usage examples could be added. If so, I would try to work in some shorter versions of the usage examples in the USAGE.md file.

I know @muellerj2 is the main author of visone at this point but just wanted to double-check in line with the review check list.

I wouldn't say I'm the main author of visone -- there are people who have contributed much more to visone2 than me. I prefer to say that I'm the maintainer of the code base, and I took over this responsibility in 2019.

One question I have is whether @muellerj2 wrote all the code or if the co-author on the Social Networks paper or any of the other visone authors contributed anything.

The co-author of the Social Networks didn't contribute any code and wasn't involved in the software design of the role analysis code (beyond the ideas and concepts we published on in Social Networks). It also includes none of the code of the visone1 or visone2 projects, so there is no code in there that was written by anyone who published a paper on prior versions of visone. Obviously, though, some design choices are based on rough ideas and concepts that have been discussed in the research group over many years.

Originally, the role analysis core of this library was supposed to become a module of the third iteration of visone, which aimed to redevelop visone from scratch and was intended to be released as open source software. (Due to its heavy reliance on a commercial graph library, it is not possible to make the predecessor project visone2 open source or even use its code as a reasonable basis for something that is supposed to become an open source project, besides the large amounts of questionable legacy code it accumulated over two decades.) However, this project has been stalled for years, is essentially abandoned, and includes no mature component now other than the role analysis module that I developed on my own for my PhD work.

I extracted the role analysis module plus a minimal set of utility classes from the visone3 repository needed to make it run and a bit easier to use, and this became the netroles library. I omitted any other functionality that was implemented during the visone3 project, which means the netroles library is only geared towards role equivalence analysis and not a general purpose network analysis library as was the aim of the visone3 project. I kept the directory structure the same, though, to make it easier for me to apply my changes to both repositories and perhaps simplify the transition in the unlikely case visone3 itself will be published at some point.

The core of this library -- the role analysis module -- was written by me alone and no one else. But while I have made additions and substantive changes to the utility classes and wrote large portions of the test code and almost all of the documentation for them, many of the utility classes used by the library (specifically containers, network representation and IO) were originally designed and written by someone else. I contacted this person before I published the library on GitHub and asked him as well whether he wanted to appear as a contributor to the library, but he declined. However, if he tells me in the future that he would like his name to appear, I will add it to the repository -- after all, it is his right to decide if and how he is named as a contributor.

Still, I wrote most of the code in the repository (at least 80% of the lines of code, likely quite a bit more but I didn't perform an exact count) and all the code for the library's core role analysis functionality. Only the utility classes contain code not written by me, but these classes could be replaced by similar functionality available in other common Java packages (although this would take quite a bit of rewriting effort since the role equivalence analysis code makes widespread use of them).

leifeld · 2023-10-26T19:57:03Z

@fboehm I'm happy with these explanations and recommend publishing the paper.

Thanks for these additional explanations, @muellerj2. As an aside, please don't let visone die. The majority of the ~ 300 publications that use Discourse Network Analyzer benefitted from it.

abhishektiwari · 2023-10-26T20:13:55Z

+1 to other reviewers' feedback.

@fboehm completed review from my end. Only open ticket is Javadoc, but that is not a blocker. I look forward to seeing more research using netroles.

fboehm · 2023-11-01T18:26:45Z

@leifeld and @abhishektiwari - Thank you for the thorough and timely reviews! this completes your duties as reviewers of this submission. I hope that we can work together on a future submission.

@muellerj2 - the reviewers have recommended your submission for publication. In a moment, I'll create a checklist of items for you and me to complete before final publication. It may take me a few days to complete my tasks. Please feel free to work on the checklist tasks for the author (in the checklist that will appear below in a moment), and please let me know if you have questions.

fboehm · 2023-11-01T18:27:03Z

fboehm · 2024-01-15T14:49:06Z

hi, @muellerj2 - I apologize for the long delay before replying. I am now back at work and would like to expedite completion of the publication process. I'll need a day or two to do a few things, including double-checking the updated version of your manuscript. I don't expect it to need many changes, but I want to look over the minor changes you made before I recommend publication.

muellerj2 · 2024-01-15T23:00:05Z

@fboehm No problem.

The paper was only changed by the following commit compared to the previous version you already checked: muellerj2/netroles@3a32477

This should make it easier for you to decide where to take a closer look in the updated paper.

fboehm · 2024-01-16T19:41:19Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

fboehm · 2024-01-16T19:41:40Z

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot · 2024-01-16T19:42:38Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.18637/jss.v024.i06 is OK
- 10.1007/3-540-45848-4_47 is OK
- 10.1111/bmsp.12192 is OK
- 10.1016/0378-8733(94)90010-8 is OK
- 10.1016/0378-8733(92)90006-S is OK
- 10.2307/270991 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-18638-7_4 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-18638-7_15 is OK
- 10.1016/0378-8733(95)00286-3 is OK
- 10.1080/0022250X.1990.9990067 is OK
- 10.1080/0022250X.1971.9989788 is OK
- 10.1016/j.socnet.2021.02.001 is OK
- 10.6084/m9.figshare.1164194 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04987 is OK
- 10.1016/j.socnet.2022.02.001 is OK
- 10.2307/270911 is OK
- 10.1016/0378-8733(83)90025-4 is OK
- 10.1016/j.socnet.2006.04.002 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-01-16T19:42:48Z

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

fboehm · 2024-01-16T19:44:11Z

@muellerj2 - Thank you - that comment is indeed helpful. The generated pdf looks good.

fboehm · 2024-01-16T19:44:43Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-01-16T19:44:45Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-01-16T19:45:42Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.18637/jss.v024.i06 is OK
- 10.1007/3-540-45848-4_47 is OK
- 10.1111/bmsp.12192 is OK
- 10.1016/0378-8733(94)90010-8 is OK
- 10.1016/0378-8733(92)90006-S is OK
- 10.2307/270991 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-18638-7_4 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-18638-7_15 is OK
- 10.1016/0378-8733(95)00286-3 is OK
- 10.1080/0022250X.1990.9990067 is OK
- 10.1080/0022250X.1971.9989788 is OK
- 10.1016/j.socnet.2021.02.001 is OK
- 10.6084/m9.figshare.1164194 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04987 is OK
- 10.1016/j.socnet.2022.02.001 is OK
- 10.2307/270911 is OK
- 10.1016/0378-8733(83)90025-4 is OK
- 10.1016/j.socnet.2006.04.002 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-01-16T19:46:06Z

👋 @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#4917, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz · 2024-01-16T20:54:45Z

As the track editor, I'll proofread this shortly and get back to you with next steps.

danielskatz · 2024-01-17T00:23:58Z

@muellerj2 - I've suggested some minor changes in muellerj2/netroles#64 - please merge this, or let me know what you disagree with, then we can proceed to acceptance and publication

muellerj2 · 2024-01-17T16:31:22Z

@danielskatz I'm fine with these changes and applied them to the paper.

danielskatz · 2024-01-17T17:42:06Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-01-17T17:42:08Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-01-17T17:43:16Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.18637/jss.v024.i06 is OK
- 10.1007/3-540-45848-4_47 is OK
- 10.1111/bmsp.12192 is OK
- 10.1016/0378-8733(94)90010-8 is OK
- 10.1016/0378-8733(92)90006-S is OK
- 10.2307/270991 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-18638-7_4 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-18638-7_15 is OK
- 10.1016/0378-8733(95)00286-3 is OK
- 10.1080/0022250X.1990.9990067 is OK
- 10.1080/0022250X.1971.9989788 is OK
- 10.1016/j.socnet.2021.02.001 is OK
- 10.6084/m9.figshare.1164194 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04987 is OK
- 10.1016/j.socnet.2022.02.001 is OK
- 10.2307/270911 is OK
- 10.1016/0378-8733(83)90025-4 is OK
- 10.1016/j.socnet.2006.04.002 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-01-17T17:43:49Z

👋 @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#4920, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz · 2024-01-17T17:46:31Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2024-01-17T17:46:32Z

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

editorialbot · 2024-01-17T17:53:18Z

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: Müller
  given-names: Julian
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6440-8046"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10070537
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Müller
    given-names: Julian
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6440-8046"
  date-published: 2024-01-17
  doi: 10.21105/joss.05903
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 93
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 5903
  title: "netroles: A Java library for role equivalence analysis in
    networks"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05903"
  volume: 9
title: "netroles: A Java library for role equivalence analysis in
  networks"

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 · 2024-01-17T17:53:21Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2024-01-17T17:53:22Z

🚨🚨🚨 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.05903 joss-papers#4921
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05903
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

danielskatz · 2024-01-17T17:58:46Z

Congratulations to @muellerj2 (Julian Müller) on your publication!!

And thanks to @leifeld and @abhishektiwari for reviewing, and to @fboehm for editing!
JOSS depends on volunteers and couldn't do this without you

editorialbot · 2024-01-17T17:58:48Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.05903/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05903)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05903">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05903/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05903/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05903

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

muellerj2 · 2024-01-17T18:57:54Z

Thank you @abhishektiwari and @leifeld for reviewing and @fboehm and @danielskatz for handling the paper.

editorialbot added Groovy Java review TeX Track: 7 (CSISM) Computer science, Information Science, and Mathematics labels Sep 30, 2023

editorialbot assigned fboehm Sep 30, 2023

editorialbot mentioned this issue Sep 30, 2023

[PRE REVIEW]: netroles: A Java library for role equivalence analysis in networks #5812

Closed

abhishektiwari mentioned this issue Oct 21, 2023

Link Javadoc for API Documentation muellerj2/netroles#33

Closed

leifeld mentioned this issue Oct 23, 2023

SVG with transparent background in linked document muellerj2/netroles#34

Closed

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Jan 16, 2024

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Jan 17, 2024

danielskatz closed this as completed Jan 17, 2024

[REVIEW]: netroles: A Java library for role equivalence analysis in networks #5903

[REVIEW]: netroles: A Java library for role equivalence analysis in networks #5903

Comments

editorialbot commented Sep 30, 2023 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Sep 30, 2023

editorialbot commented Sep 30, 2023

editorialbot commented Sep 30, 2023

editorialbot commented Sep 30, 2023

editorialbot commented Sep 30, 2023

abhishektiwari commented Sep 30, 2023 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @abhishektiwari

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

fboehm commented Oct 17, 2023

abhishektiwari commented Oct 17, 2023

fboehm commented Oct 17, 2023

abhishektiwari commented Oct 21, 2023 • edited Loading

General checks

Substantial scholarly effort

Documentation

Functionality documentation

Software paper

Quality of writing

leifeld commented Oct 23, 2023 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @leifeld

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Additional comments

leifeld commented Oct 23, 2023

fboehm commented Oct 25, 2023

fboehm commented Oct 25, 2023

muellerj2 commented Oct 26, 2023

abhishektiwari commented Oct 26, 2023

muellerj2 commented Oct 26, 2023

leifeld commented Oct 26, 2023

abhishektiwari commented Oct 26, 2023

fboehm commented Nov 1, 2023

fboehm commented Nov 1, 2023 • edited Loading

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance

fboehm commented Jan 15, 2024

muellerj2 commented Jan 15, 2024

fboehm commented Jan 16, 2024

fboehm commented Jan 16, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 16, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 16, 2024

fboehm commented Jan 16, 2024

fboehm commented Jan 16, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 16, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 16, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 16, 2024

danielskatz commented Jan 16, 2024

danielskatz commented Jan 17, 2024

muellerj2 commented Jan 17, 2024

danielskatz commented Jan 17, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 17, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 17, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 17, 2024

danielskatz commented Jan 17, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 17, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 17, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 17, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 17, 2024

danielskatz commented Jan 17, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 17, 2024

muellerj2 commented Jan 17, 2024

editorialbot commented Sep 30, 2023 •

edited

Loading

abhishektiwari commented Sep 30, 2023 •

edited

Loading

abhishektiwari commented Oct 21, 2023 •

edited

Loading

leifeld commented Oct 23, 2023 •

edited

Loading

fboehm commented Nov 1, 2023 •

edited

Loading