Devicely: A Python package for reading, timeshifting and writing sensor data

[arianesasso]

Submitting Author: Ariane Sasso (@arianesasso)
All current maintainers: @arianesasso
Package Name: Devicely
One-Line Description of Package: A Python package for reading, timeshifting and writing sensor data
Repository Link: https://github.com/hpi-dhc/devicely
Version submitted: 0.2.5
Editor: @xmnlab
Reviewer 1: @willingc
Reviewer 2: @agricolab
Archive:
JOSS DOI:
Version accepted: v1.1.1
Date accepted (month/day/year): 08/19/2021

---

Description

Wearable devices can track a multitude of parameters such as heart rate, body temperature, blood oxygen saturation, acceleration, blood glucose and much more [Kamisalic2018]. Moreover, they are becoming increasingly popular with a steeping increase in market presence in 2020 alone [IDC2020]. Applications for wearable devices varies from tracking cardiovascular risks [Bayoumy2021] to identifying COVID-19 onset [Mishra2020]. Therefore, there is a great need for scientists to easily go through data acquired from different wearables. In order to solve this problem and empower scientists working with biosignals, we developed the devicely package. It represents the data in a science-friendly format and lets scientists focus on what they want: the analysis of biosignals.

Scope

• Please indicate which category or categories this package falls under:
  • Data retrieval
  • Data extraction
  • Data munging
  • Data deposition
  • Reproducibility
  • Geospatial
  • Education
  • Data visualization*

* Please fill out a pre-submission inquiry before submitting a data visualization package. For more info, see notes on categories of our guidebook.

• Explain how the and why the package falls under these categories (briefly, 1-2 sentences):
  We developed this package for scientists to easily go through data acquired from different wearables.

• Who is the target audience and what are scientific applications of this package?
  Scientists working with wearable devices.

• Are there other Python packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ?
  Not to our knowledge.

• If you made a pre-submission enquiry, please paste the link to the corresponding issue, forum post, or other discussion, or @tag the editor you contacted:

Technical checks

For details about the pyOpenSci packaging requirements, see our packaging guide. Confirm each of the following by checking the box. This package:

• does not violate the Terms of Service of any service it interacts with.
• has an OSI approved license.
• contains a README with instructions for installing the development version.
• includes documentation with examples for all functions.
• contains a vignette with examples of its essential functions and uses.
• has a test suite.
• has continuous integration, such as Travis CI, AppVeyor, CircleCI, and/or others.

Publication options

• Do you wish to automatically submit to the Journal of Open Source Software? If so:

JOSS Checks

• The package has an obvious research application according to JOSS's definition in their submission requirements. Be aware that completing the pyOpenSci review process does not guarantee acceptance to JOSS. Be sure to read their submission requirements (linked above) if you are interested in submitting to JOSS.
• The package is not a "minor utility" as defined by JOSS's submission requirements: "Minor ‘utility’ packages, including ‘thin’ API clients, are not acceptable." pyOpenSci welcomes these packages under "Data Retrieval", but JOSS has slightly different criteria.
• The package contains a paper.md matching JOSS's requirements with a high-level description in the package root or in inst/.
• The package is deposited in a long-term repository with the DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4661545

Note: Do not submit your package separately to JOSS

Are you OK with Reviewers Submitting Issues and/or pull requests to your Repo Directly?

This option will allow reviewers to open smaller issues that can then be linked to PR's rather than submitting a more dense text based review. It will also allow you to demonstrate addressing the issue via PR links.

• Yes I am OK with reviewers submitting requested changes as issues to my repo. Reviewers will then link to the issues in their submitted review.

Code of conduct

• I agree to abide by pyOpenSci's Code of Conduct during the review process and in maintaining my package should it be accepted.

P.S. *Have feedback/comments about our review process? Leave a comment here

Editor and Review Templates

Editor and review templates can be found here

[lwasser]

hi @arianesasso ! thank you for this submission! i know it's been sitting for a while. I am just catching up and will get back to you regarding next steps!

[lwasser]

this package is definitely in scope for pyopensci review!.

[lwasser]

@arianesasso we are moving on this - we have an editor and reviewers are underway. more to come soon. @xmnlab will be the editor for this package review.

[xmnlab]

@arianesasso @lwasser, adding initial editor checks here.

@arianesasso we are lining up reviewers for your package. When we receive the confirmation I will update the text here with this information.

Editor checks:

• Fit: The package meets criteria for fit and overlap.
• Automated tests: Package has a testing suite and is tested via Travis-CI or another CI service.
• License: The package has an OSI accepted license
• Repository: The repository link resolves correctly
• Archive (JOSS only, may be post-review): The repository DOI resolves correctly
• Version (JOSS only, may be post-review): Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.0)?

---

Editor comments

---

Reviewers: @willingc @agricolab

Due date: June. 14th

[xmnlab]

Hi @willingc! @lwasser told me that she has talked to you about reviewing a package for pyopensci! that sounds great!

PyOpenSci contributing guide is here https://www.pyopensci.org/contributing-guide/intro.html

This is the guide specifically for reviewers: https://www.pyopensci.org/contributing-guide/open-source-software-submissions/reviewer-guide.html

This is my first time acting as editor, so I still in the learning curve process :) I have reviewed some packages here so feel free to ping me anytime you need any information or help.

I am waiting for the confirmation of one more reviewer and after that, I will update the schedules for this review.

thank you so much for your support :)

[xmnlab]

Hi @agricolab!

@NickleDave told me you are available to review this package, thank you so much!

PyOpenSci contributing guide is here https://www.pyopensci.org/contributing-guide/intro.html

And this is the guide specifically for reviewers: https://www.pyopensci.org/contributing-guide/open-source-software-submissions/reviewer-guide.html

As I mentioned before, this is my first time acting as an editor, so I still in the learning curve process :) I have reviewed some packages here so feel free to ping me anytime you need any information or help.

I am updating today some information in the first comment in this issue, including the due date for the reviews.

thank you so much for your support!

[xmnlab]

@arianesasso @agricolab @willingc @lwasser

I updated the information here
#37 (comment)

Let me know if I can help in any way! thank you all!

[agricolab]

Looking forward, will start reviewing next week!

[xmnlab]

thank you so much @agricolab, I really appreciate that!

[willingc]

@xmnlab I started last night and made some notes in a gist

[arianesasso]

@arianesasso we are moving on this - we have an editor and reviewers are underway. more to come soon. @xmnlab will be the editor for this package review.

Thank you so much for all your hard work!