[PRE REVIEW]: ICAT: The Interactive Corpus Analysis Tool

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @WarmCyan (Nathan Martindale)
Repository: https://github.com/ORNL/icat
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.7.2
Editor: @JBorrow
Reviewers: @SamHames, @jhagerer
Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0528d60ff4f251069d15456fdb83bd0f"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0528d60ff4f251069d15456fdb83bd0f/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0528d60ff4f251069d15456fdb83bd0f/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0528d60ff4f251069d15456fdb83bd0f)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @WarmCyan. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@WarmCyan if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

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

@editorialbot commands

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

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.14 s (1019.7 files/s, 313652.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML                            37           6489            182          18202
SVG                              6              6              6           4476
Python                          22           1051           1446           3640
Jupyter Notebook                14              0           3223            951
CSS                              6            185             42            842
JavaScript                       8            123            183            778
reStructuredText                34            485            943            276
Markdown                         5            102              0            183
YAML                             5              9             12            139
TeX                              1             12              0            138
make                             2             16              9             54
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
Bourne Shell                     1              8             10             20
JSON                             1              0              0              8
TOML                             1              1              0              8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           144           8495           6057          29741
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   136	Martindale, Nathan
     2	Nathan Martindale

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1543

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/3185517 is OK
- 10.1145/3593013.3594087 is OK
- 10.1609/aimag.v35i4.2513 is OK
- 10.1109/TAMD.2010.2051030 is OK
- 10.1145/3241379 is OK
- 10.1145/604045.604056 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Machine Teaching: A New Paradigm for Building Mach...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Panel: The powerful data exploration & web app fra...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ipyvuetify: Jupyter widgets based on vuetify UI co...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[arfon]

@WarmCyan - thanks for your submission to JOSS. We're currently managing a large backlog of submissions and the editor most appropriate for your area is already rather busy.

For now, we will need to waitlist this paper and process it as the queue reduces. Thanks for your patience!

[crvernon]

👋 @JBorrow - would you be willing to edit this submission?

[crvernon]

@editorialbot invite @JBorrow as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[JBorrow]

Hi @crvernon, happy to edit this submission.

[crvernon]

@editorialbot assign @JBorrow as editor

Thanks so much @JBorrow!

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @JBorrow is now the editor

[JBorrow]

Hi @WarmCyan! Thank you for your submission. I will begin the process of looking for reviewers, but if you have any suggestions please do let me know. The best way to do that is to either give me their name and institution, or their GitHub username without 'mentioning' them (i.e. JBorrow, not @JBorrow).

[WarmCyan]

Hello @JBorrow! In two previous JOSS submissions we've had deniederhut (github username) as a reviewer, if he's not tired of looking through our stuff yet and has time/interest, he's always provided really useful feedback previously! Other than that, no particular suggestions

[JBorrow]

Hi @deniederhut, given your experience with the author's previous work, we'd like to invite you to review this submission for JOSS too. Please let me know if you are interested!

[JBorrow]

Hi @thomaskrause, I found your name in the JOSS reviewers database. Would you be interested in reviewing this submission for us? More information on reviewing for JOSS is available in the docs: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html.

[crvernon]

👋 @JBorrow - let me know if you need help finding more reviewers for this one and we can work together to get this submission into full review. Thanks!

[JBorrow]

Hi @SamHames and @sdruskat, I found your names in the JOSS reviewers database. Would you be interested in reviewing this submission for us? More information on reviewing for JOSS is available in the docs: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html.

[SamHames]

I'd be happy to review this but I wouldn't be able to start for a couple off weeks. If that's fine, sign me up.

[JBorrow]

Hi @SamHames, that's totally fine! Thanks for agreeing to review.

[JBorrow]

@editorialbot add @SamHames as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@SamHames added to the reviewers list!

[JBorrow]

Hi @jhagerer and @KennethEnevoldsen, I found your names in the JOSS reviewers database. Would you be interested in reviewing this submission for us? More information on reviewing for JOSS is available in the docs: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html.

[KennethEnevoldsen]

Hi @JBorrow, thanks for reaching out. I sadly do not have the time atm. (I have a thesis deadline incoming), so will sadly have to decline. The work looks both interesting and relevant though.

[JBorrow]

Thanks for your quick response @KennethEnevoldsen and best of luck with the thesis.

[jhrinv]

@JBorrow looks very interesting! Yes, I'd like to review. I have to say though that this is my first review. I will take time on the weekend and investigate the acceptance criteria and the submission. Would that be acceptable?

[JBorrow]

@jhrinv, certainly, and please feel free to either ask in this thread or contact me by e-mail should you have any questions. I will check back in with you on Monday.

[jhagerer]

Again confirming from my private GitHub account. Thank you!

[jhagerer]

@JBorrow @WarmCyan I ran into problems while setting up the project, see this ticket. I have to put the review on hold until we have clarification on this. After I receive updates, I can proceed next weekend.

[jhagerer]

Current state of the checklist, which will be updated later:

Review checklist for @jhagerer

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

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/KennethEnevoldsen/augmenty?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@KennethEnevoldsen) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• 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?

[JBorrow]

Hi @jhagerer, thank you for this! We're currently in the pre-review stage, and the actual review will take place in another thread; I presume given this you are happy to review the package (given the issue will be fixed and you can continue)? If so, I can assign you as a reviewer and we will move to a separate thread.

[jhagerer]

Hi @JBorrow, yes, please go ahead, thanks.

[JBorrow]

@editorialbot add @jhagerer as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@jhagerer added to the reviewers list!

[JBorrow]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6873.

[JBorrow]

Thanks all! We will now move over to #6873 where the reviewers can get started on their checklists! Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.