Skip to content
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]: Samewords: Word disambiguation in critical text editions #941

Closed
whedon opened this Issue Sep 13, 2018 · 69 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
7 participants
@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator

whedon commented Sep 13, 2018

Submitting author: @stenskjaer (Michael Stenskjær Christensen)
Repository: https://github.com/stenskjaer/samewords
Version: 0.5.6.
Editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Reviewers: @maieul, @Padlina
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.2609228

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/2734f056707652e645a2ff9d76dcbeb9"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/2734f056707652e645a2ff9d76dcbeb9/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/2734f056707652e645a2ff9d76dcbeb9/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/2734f056707652e645a2ff9d76dcbeb9)

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 instructions & questions

@maieul & @Padlina, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

  1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
  2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman know.

Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks

Review checklist for @maieul

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

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: 0.5.6.
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@stenskjaer) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

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 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

  • 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)?

Review checklist for @Padlina

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

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: 0.5.6.
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@stenskjaer) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

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 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

  • 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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Sep 13, 2018

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @maieul, it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper 🎉.

⭐️ Important ⭐️

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

  1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

watching

  1. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Sep 13, 2018

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Sep 13, 2018

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Sep 13, 2018

@stenskjaer, @maieul, @MarjorieBurghart, and @Padlina this is where the review happens. There are tickboxes (and information) at the top of this issue which will guide you through the review process. You may also check out our review guidelines. Let me know if you have any questions.
You can comment on and discuss issue here. For larger discussions/issues you are encouraged to create issues on the project repository and refer to them here.
Let the reviewing begin! 🚀

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Oct 10, 2018

@maieul, @MarjorieBurghart, and @Padlina how are you getting on? Let me know if I can help with anything.

@maieul

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

maieul commented Oct 10, 2018

I will do test this week-end. But in any case, there is for a me a problem in the article about "A statement of need:". But I don't know if I need to evaluate, for this point, the software or the article.

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Oct 10, 2018

Thanks @maieul. The statement of need is about the software of course but should be clearly present in both the paper and the documentation. If either of these do not clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is, then please mention that here so the authors can work on adding these.

@maieul

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

maieul commented Oct 10, 2018

@stenskjaer

As mentionned earlier, I think that for a journal as floss, you must be more explicit about the problem your software deals, and present at least some information about what is a critical edition.

@Padlina

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

Padlina commented Oct 18, 2018

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Just to be sure that I'm testing everything needed: documentation is this and software paper is this, right? Should we also test the API interface and the web service?

@stenskjaer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

stenskjaer commented Oct 18, 2018

@Padlina It is my understanding that you should not test the API and web service, as it is an assistive or auxilliary way of using the software. At least that is my expectation. Comments are of course welcome.
@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman may correct me, if I am wrong.

@maieul Thank you for the observation. I think it is a good point.

Also, @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman, I think it is most meaningful that I make changes when all the reviews are done so I can get an overview of how to respond to the feedback. If you editors have good experience with other procedures, let me know.

@Padlina

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

Padlina commented Oct 18, 2018

@stenskjaer I think that there is some issues with the sensitive context match. See stenskjaer/samewords/issues/36

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Oct 18, 2018

@Padlina yes we can skip the API and web service for now. Focus on software functionality claimed/presented in the paper.

@stenskjaer in relation to waiting for all review comments to come in, I would recommend tackling issues one at a time as they come in. This way, I think, you are more likely to keep reviewers involved (we've had occasions where communication with reviewers dried up because the process took too long), and has so far been the smoothest approach. But, I leave this up to you, what ever you prefer.

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Nov 20, 2018

@maieul, @MarjorieBurghart, @Padlina can you provide an update on where we stand in the review process? Has @stenskjaer worked on the issues you highlighted? Please tick as many boxes as you are currently able to at the top. Also please list any key issues you feel are preventing you from ticking the last boxes. Thanks.

@stenskjaer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

stenskjaer commented Nov 20, 2018

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman I have added some paragraphs to give the context suggested by @maieul and pushed it to the repo of the software. But I don't know if I should trigger a rebuild of the article from in here, or somewhere else?

Further, these changes (caused by the reviews under progress) has moved the history of the repo past the 0.5.0 release flag in the repo. Should it be updated or indicated that the HEAD of the submitted material is ahead of the version indicated in the description of this review?

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Nov 20, 2018

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Nov 20, 2018

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Nov 20, 2018

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Nov 20, 2018

@stenskjaer thanks for the update. You can call @whedon generate pdf here at any time to recreate the PDF.
In relation to the version number. That is fine. Thanks for letting us know. We will make sure we update the number if this work is accepted in JOSS.

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Nov 20, 2018

@maieul can you check the updated paper? Thanks.

@maieul

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

maieul commented Nov 23, 2018

@stenskjaer thank. I think it is clear now.
@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman I will pursue the peer-review process

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Jan 4, 2019

Best wishes for 2019 everybody !

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Jan 4, 2019

@maieul thanks for your work as reviewer so far. I noticed you have not ticked the functionality box. Can you elaborate what @stenskjaer can work on with regards to this point? Thanks

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Jan 4, 2019

@Padlina can you give an update as to where we stand? I believe @stenskjaer worked on some of your comments. Thanks.

@maieul

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

maieul commented Jan 4, 2019

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman I juste need to write some MWE to test the feature.
I will try to do it soon

@Padlina

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

Padlina commented Jan 9, 2019

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman I finished my review and ticked all the boxes. I also gave Michael some last small suggestions. Should I do something else to finish the review process?

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Jan 12, 2019

@Padlina. Nope looks like you are done. Thanks!

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Jan 12, 2019

@stenskjaer have you responded to @Padlina 's "small suggestions" (@Padlina can you link to where these suggestions are discussed?)?

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Mar 5, 2019

OK, @MarjorieBurghart is no longer a reviewer

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Mar 5, 2019

Great. It looks like we are in good shape.

@stenskjaer can you please do the following:

  • Create an archived version of the software on a service like ZENODO (some have found these steps useful for automated archival of releases), and please list the DOI here once completed?

  • Can you tell us what the latest version (or release) tag is for the reviewed and archived software (it likely moved on from 0.5.0)?

Thanks.

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Mar 20, 2019

@stenskjaer 👋 ☝️

@stenskjaer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

stenskjaer commented Mar 26, 2019

Sorry for the wait!

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Apr 9, 2019

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.2609228 as archive

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Apr 9, 2019

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.2609228 is the archive.

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Apr 9, 2019

@whedon set 0.5.6. as version

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Apr 9, 2019

OK. 0.5.6. is the version.

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Apr 9, 2019

@whedon accept

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Apr 9, 2019

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Apr 9, 2019


OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.1306293 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

@openjournals openjournals deleted a comment from whedon Apr 9, 2019

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Apr 9, 2019

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#609

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#609, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true
@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Apr 9, 2019

@openjournals/joss-eics I recommend this submission is accepted

@labarba

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

labarba commented Apr 9, 2019

@stenskjaer — Since we will have the Zenodo archive DOI on the front page of the paper, as part of the metadata shown in the margin note, we don't include a citation to it or mention it in the paper. Can you delete that?

@stenskjaer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

stenskjaer commented Apr 13, 2019

@labarba: Yep, that should be done now.

@labarba

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

labarba commented Apr 13, 2019

@whedon accept

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Apr 13, 2019

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Apr 13, 2019


OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Apr 13, 2019

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#621

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#621, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true
@labarba

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

labarba commented Apr 13, 2019

@whedon accept deposit=true

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Apr 13, 2019

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Apr 13, 2019

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

  1. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#622
  2. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00941
  3. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
  4. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

@labarba

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

labarba commented Apr 13, 2019

Congratulations, @stenskjaer, your JOSS paper is published!

Big thanks to our editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman, and the reviewers: @maieul, @Padlina — we couldn't do this without you! 🙏

@labarba labarba closed this Apr 13, 2019

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

whedon commented Apr 13, 2019

🎉🎉🎉 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](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00941/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00941)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00941">
  <img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00941/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00941/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00941

This is how it will look in your documentation:

DOI

We need your help!

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:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.