Skip to content
Please note that GitHub no longer supports your web browser.

We recommend upgrading to the latest Google Chrome or Firefox.

Learn more

/ joss-reviews

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

Jump to bottom

[REVIEW]: vfi: Classification by Voting Feature Intervals #2005

Closed
whedon opened this issue Jan 8, 2020 · 9 comments
Closed

[REVIEW]: vfi: Classification by Voting Feature Intervals #2005

whedon opened this issue Jan 8, 2020 · 9 comments
Assignees
@mbobra @dflemin3
Labels
rejected review

Comments

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator

@whedon whedon commented Jan 8, 2020

Submitting author: @chkoar (Christos K. Aridas)
Repository: https://github.com/chkoar/vfi
Version: 0.0.1
Editor: @mbobra
Reviewer: @jakryd, @dflemin3
Archive: Pending

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e62d4675044e138e648b93e418dd6e32"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e62d4675044e138e648b93e418dd6e32/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e62d4675044e138e648b93e418dd6e32/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e62d4675044e138e648b93e418dd6e32)

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

@jakryd & @dflemin3, 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.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @mbobra know.

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨

Review checklist for @jakryd

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

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?
  • Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@chkoar) 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 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: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • 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?

Review checklist for @dflemin3

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

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?
  • Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@chkoar) 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 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: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • 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?
@whedon whedon added the review label Jan 8, 2020
@whedon whedon mentioned this issue Jan 8, 2020
Closed
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jan 8, 2020

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @jakryd, @dflemin3 it looks like you're currently assigned to review 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

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jan 8, 2020 

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jan 8, 2020

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

@mbobra

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Member

@mbobra mbobra commented Jan 8, 2020

@jakryd @dflemin3 Thank you for agreeing to review this submission! Whedon generated a checklist and linked a reviewer guide above -- please feel free to ask me any questions you may have throughout this process.
@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Member

@arfon arfon commented Jan 10, 2020

Hi all, my sincere apologies for not catching this sooner but I'm afraid we're going to have to reject this submission. While it looks to be a useful little package, this falls into our 'minor utility' category.

@chkoar @mbobra - apologies for not catching this at the pre-review stage of the process when editorial decisions in JOSS like this are meant to be made.

@jakryd @dflemin3 - thank you for agreeing to review this submission. From the looks of things it appears that you've not started your reviews yet so hopefully we've not wasted too much of your time.
@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Member

@arfon arfon commented Jan 10, 2020

@whedon reject
@whedon whedon added the rejected label Jan 10, 2020
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jan 10, 2020

Paper rejected.
@arfon arfon closed this Jan 10, 2020
@mbobra

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Member

@mbobra mbobra commented Jan 10, 2020

@arfon No worries, I understand. @danielskatz asked me to edit this submission and I was happy to do so.

I do want to point out that @jakryd @dflemin3 were both excited about reviewing for JOSS and @dflemin3 even went through the trouble of reading the JOSS Editorial Guide to prep for this review. So I hope we can be a little better about identifying minor submissions before we solicit reviewers. I do understand that mix-ups happen sometimes.

A big thank you to @jakryd @dflemin3 for volunteering so readily on top of your already busy workload ☀️
@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jan 10, 2020

Sorry - I think the new stats that we get when start a pre-review will help in seeing submissions that need more inspection
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@mbobra mbobra

@dflemin3 dflemin3

Labels
rejected review
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
5 participants
@whedon @mbobra @arfon @danielskatz @dflemin3
You can’t perform that action at this time.