[REVIEW]: Aletheia: an open-source toolbox for steganalysis

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @daniellerch (Daniel Lerch-Hostalot)
Repository: https://github.com/daniellerch/aletheia
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): master
Version: v0.3
Editor: @mstimberg
Reviewers: @YassineYousfi, @ragibson
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10497963

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/64b31ee2cb62898ab84706db83642354"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/64b31ee2cb62898ab84706db83642354/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/64b31ee2cb62898ab84706db83642354/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/64b31ee2cb62898ab84706db83642354)

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

@YassineYousfi & @ragibson, 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 @mstimberg 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 @ragibson

📝 Checklist for @YassineYousfi

[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=0.08 s (437.7 files/s, 89553.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          19           1370            477           3942
Markdown                         8            192              0            497
TeX                              1             20              0            160
Bourne Shell                     4             27              1             47
YAML                             1              1              0             18
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            33           1610            478           4664
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1052

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/TIFS.2018.2871749 is OK
- 10.1007/11552055_12 is OK
- 10.1186/1687-417X-2014-1 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4655945 is OK
- 10.1145/3335203.3335738 is OK
- 10.1109/tdsc.2022.3154967 is OK
- 10.1109/icip.2014.7025854 is OK
- 10.1007/3-540-45496-9_2 is OK
- 10.1109/WIFS49906.2020.9360897 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.29327/226091 may be a valid DOI for title: Aletheia

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[mstimberg]

👋🏼 @daniellerch, @YassineYousfi, @ragibson, this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

As a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering

@editorialbot generate my checklist

at the top of a new comment in this thread.

There are additional guidelines in the first comment of this issue.

Please don't hesitate to ping me (@mstimberg) if you have any questions/concerns.

[ragibson]

Review checklist for @ragibson

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/daniellerch/aletheia?
• 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 (@daniellerch) 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?

[ragibson]

(Apologies for originally pinging the wrong Daniel in this comment)

Finally getting around to this.

Just a quick note on the list of authors -- it seems the primary author @daniellerch wrote the software package and both authors collaborated on a few of the detection techniques used by the package (e.g., https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3335203.3335738 and https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9722958), so the authors list looks good to me.

There are a handful of other contributors on the GitHub repository, but they're all much more minor.

[ragibson]

A note on the data sharing point -- the paper basically contains no original data since the examples are generic and I was able to effectively run them with my own local images.

Ditto on reproducibility of the examples in the paper.

[ragibson]

I would note that I ran into a few opaque errors in the simulators, but they look like research-grade code sourced from other authors/institutions (hence the requirement to accept secondary licenses and download the code from https://github.com/daniellerch/aletheia-external-resources). In these cases, the issues are external to the authors' work.

@daniellerch That said, I would like to see the secondary repository explicitly linked in the paper and/or READMEs of the package rather than just in aletheialib/utils.py.

[ragibson]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[mstimberg]

@ragibson Many thanks for your review and comments so far. @YassineYousfi, did you have any chance to look at the software/paper yet?

[YassineYousfi]

@mstimberg not yet, but I will check it out and review it this weekend!

[daniellerch]

@mstimberg The second author didn't directly contribute code, yet their involvement has been recognized, and they are now included in the Zenodo archive. I believe everything is now in order. Thank you!

[mstimberg]

@daniellerch Many thanks for the changes. From your changes on Zenodo, I just realized that the affiliations concern three separate institutions (even though I assume they are all co-located). Could you update the paper in that regard, i.e. list them as ¹²³ as in the Zenodo archive (stating "Barcelona, Spain" each time – assuming this is correct, of course)? Thanks!

[daniellerch]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[daniellerch]

@mstimberg Thank you for pointing this out. The changes have been made to the paper, listing the affiliations as ¹²³ and stating 'Barcelona, Spain' for each, as per your suggestion. Thanks again!

[editorialbot]

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

[mstimberg]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/TIFS.2018.2871749 is OK
- 10.1145/1288869.1288872 is OK
- 10.1109/TIFS.2014.2312817 is OK
- 10.1007/11552055_12 is OK
- 10.1186/1687-417X-2014-1 is OK
- 10.1145/2482513.2482965 is OK
- 10.1145/3335203.3335738 is OK
- 10.1109/tdsc.2022.3154967 is OK
- 10.1109/icip.2014.7025854 is OK
- 10.1007/3-540-45496-9_2 is OK
- 10.1109/WIFS49906.2020.9360897 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[mstimberg]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

All looking good from my side, handing things over to the topic editor for the final steps. Thanks again to everyone involved!

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/TIFS.2018.2871749 is OK
- 10.1145/1288869.1288872 is OK
- 10.1109/TIFS.2014.2312817 is OK
- 10.1007/11552055_12 is OK
- 10.1186/1687-417X-2014-1 is OK
- 10.1145/2482513.2482965 is OK
- 10.1145/3335203.3335738 is OK
- 10.1109/tdsc.2022.3154967 is OK
- 10.1109/icip.2014.7025854 is OK
- 10.1007/3-540-45496-9_2 is OK
- 10.1109/WIFS49906.2020.9360897 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👋 @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#4903, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[danielskatz]

Thanks @mstimberg! @daniellerch - I'll now proofread this and let you know the next steps

[danielskatz]

👋 @daniellerch - I've suggested some minor changes in the paper text in daniellerch/aletheia#34 - please merge this, or let me know what you disagree with, then we can proceed to acceptance and publication

[daniellerch]

Thank you for your input @danielskatz, I've merged the suggested changes.

[danielskatz]

@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

- 10.1109/TIFS.2018.2871749 is OK
- 10.1145/1288869.1288872 is OK
- 10.1109/TIFS.2014.2312817 is OK
- 10.1007/11552055_12 is OK
- 10.1186/1687-417X-2014-1 is OK
- 10.1145/2482513.2482965 is OK
- 10.1145/3335203.3335738 is OK
- 10.1109/tdsc.2022.3154967 is OK
- 10.1109/icip.2014.7025854 is OK
- 10.1007/3-540-45496-9_2 is OK
- 10.1109/WIFS49906.2020.9360897 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👋 @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#4912, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[danielskatz]

@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: Lerch-Hostalot
  given-names: Daniel
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2602-672X"
- family-names: Megías
  given-names: David
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0507-7731"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10497963
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Lerch-Hostalot
    given-names: Daniel
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2602-672X"
  - family-names: Megías
    given-names: David
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0507-7731"
  date-published: 2024-01-16
  doi: 10.21105/joss.05982
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 93
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 5982
  title: "Aletheia: an open-source toolbox for steganalysis"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05982"
  volume: 9
title: "Aletheia: an open-source toolbox for steganalysis"

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]

🐘🐘🐘 👉 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.05982 joss-papers#4913
1. Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05982
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...

[danielskatz]

Congratulations to @daniellerch (Daniel Lerch-Hostalot) and co-author on your publication!!

And thanks to @YassineYousfi and @ragibson for reviewing, and to @mstimberg for editing!
JOSS depends on volunteers and couldn't be successful without you

[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.05982/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05982)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05982">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05982/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05982/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05982

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

[daniellerch]

Thanks @YassineYousfi, @ragibson, @mstimberg and @danielskatz for your great work on the JOSS publication. Really appreciate your insightful reviews and edits!