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]: hebbRNN: A Reward-Modulated Hebbian Learning Rule for Recurrent Neural Networks #60

Closed
whedon opened this Issue Sep 12, 2016 · 18 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@whedon
Collaborator

whedon commented Sep 12, 2016

Submitting author: JonathanAMichaels (Jonathan A Michaels)
Repository: https://github.com/JonathanAMichaels/hebbRNN
Version: v1.2
Editor: @arfon
Reviewer: @cMadan
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.154745

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/03d299789d8d6b633e648342b4454dca"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/03d299789d8d6b633e648342b4454dca/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/03d299789d8d6b633e648342b4454dca/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/03d299789d8d6b633e648342b4454dca)

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)
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 questions

Conflict of interest

  • As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (such as being a major contributor to the software).

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
  • License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
  • Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.2)?

Functionality

  • Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
  • Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
  • Performance: Have any performance claims of the software been confirmed?

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 function 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

Paper PDF: 10.21105.joss.00060.pdf

  • Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g. papers, datasets, software)?

@whedon whedon added the review label Sep 12, 2016

@cMadan cMadan self-assigned this Sep 12, 2016

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@arfon

arfon Sep 12, 2016

Member

/ cc @openjournals/joss-reviewers - would anyone be willing to review this submission?

If you would like to review this submission then please comment on this thread so that others know you're doing a review (so as not to duplicate effort). Something as simple as :hand: I am reviewing this will suffice.

Reviewer instructions

  • Please work through the checklist at the start of this issue.
  • If you need any further guidance/clarification take a look at the reviewer guidelines here http://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines
  • Please make a publication recommendation at the end of your review

Any questions, please ask for help by commenting on this issue! 🚀

Member

arfon commented Sep 12, 2016

/ cc @openjournals/joss-reviewers - would anyone be willing to review this submission?

If you would like to review this submission then please comment on this thread so that others know you're doing a review (so as not to duplicate effort). Something as simple as :hand: I am reviewing this will suffice.

Reviewer instructions

  • Please work through the checklist at the start of this issue.
  • If you need any further guidance/clarification take a look at the reviewer guidelines here http://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines
  • Please make a publication recommendation at the end of your review

Any questions, please ask for help by commenting on this issue! 🚀

@cMadan

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cMadan

cMadan Sep 12, 2016

Member

I am reviewing this

Member

cMadan commented Sep 12, 2016

I am reviewing this

@arfon arfon changed the title from Submission: hebbRNN: A Reward-Modulated Hebbian Learning Rule for Recurrent Neural Networks to [REVIEW]: hebbRNN: A Reward-Modulated Hebbian Learning Rule for Recurrent Neural Networks Sep 20, 2016

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@arfon

arfon Sep 20, 2016

Member

@whedon commands

Member

arfon commented Sep 20, 2016

@whedon commands

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whedon

whedon Sep 20, 2016

Collaborator

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List all of Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# Assign a GitHub user as the reviewer of this submission
@whedon assign @username as reviewer

# List the GitHub usernames of the JOSS editors
@whedon list editors

# List of JOSS reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers

# Change editorial assignment
@whedon assign @username as editor

# Open the review issue
@whedon start review

🚧 Important 🚧

This is all quite new. Please make sure you check the top of the issue after running a @whedon command (you might also need to refresh the page to see the issue update).

Collaborator

whedon commented Sep 20, 2016

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List all of Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# Assign a GitHub user as the reviewer of this submission
@whedon assign @username as reviewer

# List the GitHub usernames of the JOSS editors
@whedon list editors

# List of JOSS reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers

# Change editorial assignment
@whedon assign @username as editor

# Open the review issue
@whedon start review

🚧 Important 🚧

This is all quite new. Please make sure you check the top of the issue after running a @whedon command (you might also need to refresh the page to see the issue update).

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@arfon

arfon Sep 20, 2016

Member

@whedon assign @cMadan as reviewer

Member

arfon commented Sep 20, 2016

@whedon assign @cMadan as reviewer

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whedon

whedon Sep 20, 2016

Collaborator

OK, the reviewer is @cMadan

Collaborator

whedon commented Sep 20, 2016

OK, the reviewer is @cMadan

@arfon arfon assigned arfon and unassigned cMadan Sep 20, 2016

@cMadan

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cMadan

cMadan Sep 22, 2016

Member

@JonathanAMichaels - sorry for the delay in reviewing your submission.

I looked at the documentation, tried the examples, and checked over everything--your submission impressively follows the JOSS guidelines as-submitted!

I have only two minor suggestions that need to be addressed:
(1) paper.bib, references are missing DOIs.
(2) README.md, typo: "dependecies"

Pending these very minor changes, I am happy to recommend the submission be accepted at JOSS.

Member

cMadan commented Sep 22, 2016

@JonathanAMichaels - sorry for the delay in reviewing your submission.

I looked at the documentation, tried the examples, and checked over everything--your submission impressively follows the JOSS guidelines as-submitted!

I have only two minor suggestions that need to be addressed:
(1) paper.bib, references are missing DOIs.
(2) README.md, typo: "dependecies"

Pending these very minor changes, I am happy to recommend the submission be accepted at JOSS.

@JonathanAMichaels

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@JonathanAMichaels

JonathanAMichaels Sep 23, 2016

Thank you for the very positive review!

I have corrected both errors with the exception of one reference that does not have a DOI.

JonathanAMichaels commented Sep 23, 2016

Thank you for the very positive review!

I have corrected both errors with the exception of one reference that does not have a DOI.

@cMadan

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cMadan

cMadan Sep 23, 2016

Member

Looks good to me!

@arfon - I am happy to recommend this submission be accepted at JOSS.

Member

cMadan commented Sep 23, 2016

Looks good to me!

@arfon - I am happy to recommend this submission be accepted at JOSS.

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@arfon

arfon Sep 23, 2016

Member

@arfon - I am happy to recommend this submission be accepted at JOSS.

@cMadan thanks for turning this around quickly.

@JonathanAMichaels at this point could you make an archive of the reviewed software in Zenodo/figshare/other service and update this thread with the DOI of the archive? I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

Member

arfon commented Sep 23, 2016

@arfon - I am happy to recommend this submission be accepted at JOSS.

@cMadan thanks for turning this around quickly.

@JonathanAMichaels at this point could you make an archive of the reviewed software in Zenodo/figshare/other service and update this thread with the DOI of the archive? I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

@JonathanAMichaels

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@JonathanAMichaels

JonathanAMichaels Sep 23, 2016

@arfon Done! Here's the archive: DOI

JonathanAMichaels commented Sep 23, 2016

@arfon Done! Here's the archive: DOI

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@arfon

arfon Sep 23, 2016

Member

@whedon commands

Member

arfon commented Sep 23, 2016

@whedon commands

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whedon

whedon Sep 23, 2016

Collaborator

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List all of Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# Assign a GitHub user as the reviewer of this submission
@whedon assign @username as reviewer

# List the GitHub usernames of the JOSS editors
@whedon list editors

# List of JOSS reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers

# Change editorial assignment
@whedon assign @username as editor

# Set the software archive DOI at the top of the issue e.g.
@whedon set 10.0000/zenodo.00000 as archive

# Open the review issue
@whedon start review

🚧 Important 🚧

This is all quite new. Please make sure you check the top of the issue after running a @whedon command (you might also need to refresh the page to see the issue update).

Collaborator

whedon commented Sep 23, 2016

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List all of Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# Assign a GitHub user as the reviewer of this submission
@whedon assign @username as reviewer

# List the GitHub usernames of the JOSS editors
@whedon list editors

# List of JOSS reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers

# Change editorial assignment
@whedon assign @username as editor

# Set the software archive DOI at the top of the issue e.g.
@whedon set 10.0000/zenodo.00000 as archive

# Open the review issue
@whedon start review

🚧 Important 🚧

This is all quite new. Please make sure you check the top of the issue after running a @whedon command (you might also need to refresh the page to see the issue update).

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@arfon

arfon Sep 23, 2016

Member

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.154745 as archive

Member

arfon commented Sep 23, 2016

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.154745 as archive

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whedon

whedon Sep 23, 2016

Collaborator

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.154745 is the archive.

Collaborator

whedon commented Sep 23, 2016

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.154745 is the archive.

@arfon arfon added the accepted label Sep 23, 2016

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@arfon

arfon Sep 23, 2016

Member

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.154745 as archive

Member

arfon commented Sep 23, 2016

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.154745 as archive

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whedon

whedon Sep 23, 2016

Collaborator

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.154745 is the archive.

Collaborator

whedon commented Sep 23, 2016

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.154745 is the archive.

@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@arfon

arfon Sep 23, 2016

Member

Thanks again for the review @cMadan!

@JonathanAMichaels your paper is now accepted into JOSS. Your paper DOI is http://dx.doi.org/10.21105/joss.00060 🎉 🚀 💥

Member

arfon commented Sep 23, 2016

Thanks again for the review @cMadan!

@JonathanAMichaels your paper is now accepted into JOSS. Your paper DOI is http://dx.doi.org/10.21105/joss.00060 🎉 🚀 💥

@arfon arfon closed this Sep 23, 2016

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment