Skip to content

/ 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]: htmldate: A Python package to extract publication dates from web pages #2439

Open
whedon opened this issue Jul 4, 2020 · 15 comments
Open

[REVIEW]: htmldate: A Python package to extract publication dates from web pages #2439

whedon opened this issue Jul 4, 2020 · 15 comments
Assignees
@proycon @danielskatz @geoffbacon
Labels
review

Comments

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator

@whedon whedon commented Jul 4, 2020 •
edited by geoffbacon

Submitting author: @adbar (Adrien Barbaresi)
Repository: https://github.com/adbar/htmldate
Version: v0.6.3
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewer: @geoffbacon, @proycon
Archive: Pending

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/71cfb002bbc47d453586f1bf2ab30b85"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/71cfb002bbc47d453586f1bf2ab30b85/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/71cfb002bbc47d453586f1bf2ab30b85/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/71cfb002bbc47d453586f1bf2ab30b85)

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

@geoffbacon & @proycon, 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 @danielskatz know.

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

Review checklist for @geoffbacon

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 (@adbar) 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 @proycon

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 (@adbar) 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 Jul 4, 2020
@whedon whedon mentioned this issue Jul 4, 2020
Closed
@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jul 4, 2020

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

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

⭐ 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
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jul 4, 2020 

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1515/zgl-2017-0017 is OK
- 10.18653/v1/w16-2602 is OK
- 10.1162/coli.2007.33.1.147 is OK
- 10.1007/s10579-009-9081-4 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jul 4, 2020

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

@danielskatz
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jul 4, 2020

👋 @geoffbacon & @proycon - thanks for agreeing to review this submission. Please be sure to read the comments above, and let me know if you have any questions. Basically, your job is to check the article proof and repository and check items off your checklist above.

If you see small problems that need to be discussed, feel free to discuss them here. But if you can, create a new issue in the target repository and link to this review thread in that issue to create a corresponding breadcrumb trail here.

I look forward to seeing how this review goes!
@geoffbacon
Copy link
Collaborator

@geoffbacon geoffbacon commented Jul 5, 2020

Thanks @danielskatz - I will have this done by Friday 10th July (PDT).
@proycon
Copy link
Collaborator

@proycon proycon commented Jul 8, 2020

I completed my review, ticking the boxes in the original post (@danielskatz I assume there's some protection layer there confirming that I was the one ticking them right?).

Overal summary: I think it's a well written paper and useful software package, suitable for publication in JOSS.

Some extra comments:

Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@adbar) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

The 2nd contributor (@DerKozmonaut) I assume to be the person Yannick Kozmus that is explicitly acknowledged in the acknowledgements section, this seems appropriate and complete to me.

I evaluated some of the software's functionality by running it on a few arbitrary URLs:

For the developers, I'd say there's possible room for future improvement in adding some specific heuristics for some big platforms like reddit and wikipedia. (should be easy pickings)
@proycon proycon self-assigned this Jul 8, 2020
@danielskatz
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jul 8, 2020

@proycon - thanks!

I completed my review, ticking the boxes in the original post (@danielskatz I assume there's some protection layer there confirming that I was the one ticking them right?).

no, but the fact that you have written here about the paper being suitable implies that you have also checked off all the items, or at least, that you agree with their status as being checked off.
@geoffbacon
Copy link
Collaborator

@geoffbacon geoffbacon commented Jul 11, 2020

Hi @danielskatz - I'll be able to get to this on Monday, thanks for understanding.
@geoffbacon
Copy link
Collaborator

@geoffbacon geoffbacon commented Jul 13, 2020

Finished my review. Like @proycon, I find htmldate to be a useful utility library with a clear motivation. I particularly appreciated the evaluation suite that tests the library against numerous other existing solutions.
@danielskatz
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jul 13, 2020

Thanks @geoffbacon
@danielskatz
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jul 13, 2020

@whedon generate pdf
@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jul 13, 2020

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

@danielskatz
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jul 13, 2020

@whedon check references
@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jul 13, 2020 

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1515/zgl-2017-0017 is OK
- 10.18653/v1/w16-2602 is OK
- 10.1162/coli.2007.33.1.147 is OK
- 10.1007/s10579-009-9081-4 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
@danielskatz
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jul 13, 2020

@adbar- to finish this process, I've suggested some changes to the paper in adbar/htmldate#15
Please also fix the references, for example the booktitle in Hamborg et al. has some incorrect cases, as does at least on python (that should be Python). Please check all the references carefully, and use {}s in the bibtex to protect cases.

Then use @whedon generate pdf to regenerate the PDF to check.

Once you are happy with this, please

  • Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here.
  • Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g., figshare, an institutional repository)
  • Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) has the correct metadata, this includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it); you may also add the authors' ORCID.
  • Please list the DOI of the archived version here.

I can then move forward with accepting the submission.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@proycon proycon

@danielskatz danielskatz

@geoffbacon geoffbacon

Labels
review
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
4 participants
@proycon @danielskatz @geoffbacon @whedon
You can’t perform that action at this time.