Joss-reviews: [REVIEW]: TEAM: Tensegrity Engineering Analysis Master

[whedon]

Submitting author: @ramaniitrgoyal92 (Raman Goyal)
Repository: https://github.com/ramaniitrgoyal92/Tensegrity_Engineering_Analysis_Master-TEAM-
Version: v2.1
Editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Reviewer: @apsabelhaus, @vaishnavtv, @ctdegroot
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3516978

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/2bb1bc63a09516261707455539ebd892"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/2bb1bc63a09516261707455539ebd892/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/2bb1bc63a09516261707455539ebd892/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/2bb1bc63a09516261707455539ebd892)

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

@apsabelhaus & @vaishnavtv & @ctdegroot, 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 @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman know.

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

Review checklist for @apsabelhaus

Conflict of interest

• [x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

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

General checks

• [x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• [x] Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v2.1)?
• [x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@ramaniitrgoyal92) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• [x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• [x] 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

• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• [x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• [x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• [x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
• [x] 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

• [x] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @vaishnavtv

Conflict of interest

• [x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

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

General checks

• [x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• [x] Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v2.1)?
• [x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@ramaniitrgoyal92) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• [x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• [x] 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

• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• [x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• [x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• [x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
• [x] 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

• [x] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @ctdegroot

Conflict of interest

• [x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

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

General checks

• [x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• [x] Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v2.1)?
• [x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@ramaniitrgoyal92) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• [x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• [x] 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

• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• [x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• [x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• [x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
• [x] 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

• [x] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @apsabelhaus, @vaishnavtv, @ctdegroot it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper :tada:.

:star: Important :star:

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:

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

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@ramaniitrgoyal92, @apsabelhaus, @vaishnavtv, @ctdegroot, apologies for the delay in getting this review started. This is where the review will take place. The reviewers have tick-box sections and instructions at the top of this issue.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@apsabelhaus, @vaishnavtv, @ctdegroot Let me know if you have any questions.

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman @apsabelhaus @ctdegroot We did the suggested changes. Thanks a lot!

[ctdegroot]

@ramaniitrgoyal92 A few things to look at for now before I get into looking at the actual software:

• It is stated that the version is 2.1, but there are no tags in the repository to indicate this.
• The paper just contains one main section "Summary". I think it would be better if you added a couple of sections to separate the background information from the description of the software.

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

@ctdegroot We did the suggested changes. Thanks a lot!

[vaishnavtv]

@ramaniitrgoyal92

The version number as submitted to JOSS for review is 2.1, but the technical manual document lists it as 1.x. It'd be helpful to tag releases from the Github repository itself, to avoid conflicting information.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@ctdegroot We did the suggested changes. Thanks a lot!

@ctdegroot can you verify the changes made? Thanks

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@ramaniitrgoyal92

The version number as submitted to JOSS for review is 2.1, but the technical manual document lists it as 1.x. It'd be helpful to tag releases from the Github repository itself, to avoid conflicting information.

@vaishnavtv you can tick the version box (it will be removed in future review issues) as we fix the version tag on acceptance.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@apsabelhaus are you able to finalize this review soon? Thanks.

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

@vaishnavtv We did the suggested changes. Thanks a lot!

[apsabelhaus]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman thanks for the reminder. These next few days are packed for me, but I tentatively hope to complete the review by the end of the week. Thanks for everyone's patience.

[apsabelhaus]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman, it looks like @ramaniitrgoyal92 has changed the name of the repository / submission (from TEAM to MOTES.) I've checked the "code available at the url" box, since Github redirects to the new repository, but it seems the original URL is to the "TEAM" name. Is there a way that the authors should be updating the JOSS submission with the new name, etc.? Are there other dependencies based on name that need to be looked at by the reviewers?

[apsabelhaus]

@ramaniitrgoyal92 I went through a second round of review just now and opened some more issues. Generally speaking, it seems like this review is taking a while, and I don't think that's just because it's the summertime. The code and documentation are still difficult to read and understand, contain typos, etc. This review would probably go by faster if y'all took a second look at JOSS' standards and verified how you think you meet them all, maybe by responding in the issues with an explanation. Additionally, like I recommended in a response to an issue, describing your changes specifically is better than "thanks, we fixed it!" since that doesn't tell me what you changed.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

Thanks @apsabelhaus ! @ramaniitrgoyal92 can you respond to these issues? Thanks.

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

I am currently out of country for a conference. I am working on it in between and will try to finish as soon as possible.
Sorry for the delay.

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

Respond_to_JOSS.docx

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman @apsabelhaus Please check the attached file containing the response for all the changes made in the repository. Thanks!

[vaishnavtv]

@ramaniitrgoyal92, sorry for the delay in response, but I think the reviewers would appreciate it if you could comment/respond to the questions in the corresponding issues in the repository itself.

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

@ramaniitrgoyal92, sorry for the delay in response, but I think the reviewers would appreciate it if you could comment/respond to the questions in the corresponding issues in the repository itself.

We have responded to the comments in the corresponding issues of the repository.
Thanks!

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

Respond_to_JOSS.docx

The complete list of updates can be found in the attached word document.

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

@ctdegroot @apsabelhaus Could you please check our .docx file response and let us know your ideas? Thanks, indeed!

[vaishnavtv]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman, I've completed the review. The authors have addressed all the issues I have raised, and amended the paper to reflect the edits I've suggested. If there's nothing else left to review on my part, I would like to recommend this paper for publication. Kindly let me know if you'd like my assistance with anything else on this submission.

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

@vaishnavtv Thank you so much for your helpful reviews! @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Appreciate your time and efforts!

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@apsabelhaus @ctdegroot can you review the changes proposed by @ramaniitrgoyal92 and summarize what points you feel are still remaining? Thanks!

[apsabelhaus]

I'll work on this today. Thanks for everyone's patience.

[apsabelhaus]

@ramaniitrgoyal92, you mentioned that you'd responded to comments in the issues in the repository in response to @vaishnavtv's point, but I still had to sort through the word document for issue #1 since the full responses weren't actually in the Github issues. This review is becoming tiresome, and it would be very much appreciated if the authors were more careful and more thorough in the future when saying what you did then actually doing so.

[apsabelhaus]

Also, @ramaniitrgoyal92 when sending a reminder for me to complete this review, it's more helpful to use mentions in this thread (which send emails through Github) instead of contacting me directly at my personal email address as the authorship team did a week ago. See for example how @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman did so.

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

@apsabelhaus Thanks for your comments! I added a note to the #1 issue. (Note: setup.m must be run every time MATLAB opens, before any other file.) Thanks for reminding us and sorry indeed for the inconvenience!

[apsabelhaus]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman I finished up this penultimate round of reviews. The only remaining issue (which may be substantial, I'm unsure) is the licensing where the authors use someone else's code. If you could take over and work with the authors on that, it would be appreciated, since I can't speak to JOSS' policies. Once that's fixed, I would recommend this submission for publication!

[ctdegroot]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman I'm satisfied with the changes made by the authors and think that is suitable for all points on the checklist.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

Thanks @ctdegroot for your help here!

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

Thanks @apsabelhaus. I can take over. However you also have a "Functionality" box unticked here, are there any remaining issues with the functionality?

In relation to the remaining license issue. Can you explain that in more detail? Are dependencies used without referring to the original works and without including the licences? Or are license conditions from the dependencies not met?

[apsabelhaus]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman thanks for catching the box-checking mistake - just switched "functionality" with "license."

Summary of the potential licensing problem: (questions for you in parentheses)

• Authors included multiple files from other works and other authors. (Does JOSS approve of including other open-source code in a submission, as long as the original licenses are included, and the code from other sources does not represent a substantial contribution of the submission?)

• Those files originally contained neither attribution nor license from the original source, so were presumably submitted as the authors' original work. Aside - does JOSS have an academic dishonesty statement somewhere that could be referenced in the future?

• This has been corrected, now the files I identified have both attribution and the original license copied into the comments in the file. The authors have reviewed the rest of the repository and they believe that all other code is their original work.

• However, these licenses are different: Apache in the LICENSE file for the authors' code, MIT for the outside code. (Does there need to be some more explanation of which licenses apply where, or is it generally assumed that any license present in an individual file supersedes one in a root directory of a repository?)

That's all! If these answers are "Yes, this is all OK", then I'll have completed the review!

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@ramaniitrgoyal92 can you verify that you clearly state all the third party works and dependencies included with your software? Also can you make sure you check the license terms for these? E.g. if you have to include the license you do etc.

@apsabelhaus thanks for the thorough review! And also for raising these points. If works from others are included they need to be labelled as such (attribution) and the license terms and conditions of such works need to be respected/adhered to.
The license chosen by the author would apply to their work only, not the third party works in the repositoty. If included dependencies have a different license these need to be included. Good practice is to have separate folders for each differently licensed object. Quite often there are no issues with such licenses. The copy-left licenses are an exception as they might force the repo to also carry that license. I believe there are no issues with regards to having MIT licensed content (provided attribution is given and also the license is included) in an Apache-2 repo.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@apsabelhaus feel free to tick that license box. Thanks again for your help here!!

[apsabelhaus]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman thanks for the information, it's very helpful for future reviews! I checked the last box, and I recommend this submission for publication. Congrats to the authors for writing a nice and useful piece of software!

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

@ramaniitrgoyal92 can you verify that you clearly state all the third party works and dependencies included with your software? Also can you make sure you check the license terms for these? E.g. if you have to include the license you do etc.

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
We have included all the third-party dependencies used in our software. We have added license and attribution to the used functions. We have also added the following in the readme file present in the Function_Library.

"This file contains all necessary functions of tensegrity dynamics and statics.
The ode solver is written by Kelly Kearney: https://github.com/kakearney/ecosystem-pkg/blob/master/odefixed/ode4.m. Their code MIT License (MIT) is included in the functions."

Thank you all for the helpful suggestions!

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@whedon check references

[whedon]

Attempting to check references...

[whedon]

```Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

• 10.2514/6.2017-5141 is OK
• 10.2514/6.2018-5109 is OK
• 10.1061/9780784481899.082 is OK
• 10.1109/IROS.2017.8206022 is OK
• 10.1177/0956059919845330 is OK
• 10.23919/ACC.2017.7963738 is OK
• 10.1007/s11044-019-09666-4 is OK
• 10.2514/6.2003-1978 is OK
• 10.21105/joss.01042 is OK

MISSING DOIs

• https://doi.org/10.1260/0266-3511.30.3-4.221 may be missing for title: Minimum mass and optimal complexity of planar tensegrity bridges

INVALID DOIs

• None
  ```

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

PDF failed to compile for issue #1613 with the following error:

Error reading bibliography ./paper.bib (line 107, column 3):
unexpected "p"
expecting space, ",", white space or "}"
Error running filter pandoc-citeproc:
Filter returned error status 1
Looks like we failed to compile the PDF

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

@whedon check references

[whedon]

Attempting to check references...

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

```Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

• 10.2514/6.2017-5141 is OK
• 10.2514/6.2018-5109 is OK
• 10.1061/9780784481899.082 is OK
• 10.1109/IROS.2017.8206022 is OK
• 10.1177/0956059919845330 is OK
• 10.23919/ACC.2017.7963738 is OK
• 10.1007/s11044-019-09666-4 is OK
• 10.1260/0266-3511.30.3-4.221 is OK
• 10.2514/6.2003-1978 is OK
• 10.21105/joss.01042 is OK

MISSING DOIs

• None

INVALID DOIs

• None
  ```

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@ramaniitrgoyal92 Some points on your paper below (I read the version just before you regenerated the pdf, can you tell me what changes you made?). Thanks

• [x] In Tensegrity systems (Skelton & Oliveira, 2009) dynamics... This reads better if the reference is moved after the word dynamics. Please make this change if you agree.
• [x] In ....of the class of Multi-body dynamics..., does multi-body need the capital letter? consider using a lower case letter. If you chose to use a lower case check your paper throughout.
• [x] Please use past tense for The name ‘Tensegrity’ is coined by..., should be The name ‘Tensegrity’ was coined by...
• [x] Please rephrase: "The name ‘Tensegrity’ is coined by Buckminster Fuller (Fuller, 1959). The name comes by adding ‘Tensile +Integrity = Tensegrity’ for the art-form created by Ioganson (1921) and Snelson (1948) (Snelson, 1965).",
  I propose (unless I misunderstood): "The term tensegrity was first coined by Buckminster Fuller (Fuller, 1959), and is a portmanteau of "tensional integrity. Tensegrity structures also appeared in earlier art works by Ioganson (1921) and Snelson (1948) (Snelson, 1965)."
• [x] Please rephrase "Skelton defines “Class-1” tensegrity system where no compressive members touch each other, and a “Class-k” system, where k number of compressive members are connected at a node Skelton & Oliveira, 2009).", I propose (unless I misunderstood): "Skelton defines a tensegrity structure as a“Class-1” system if none of the compressive members are connected, if on the other hand k compressive members are connected at a node, this is referred to as a “Class-k” system (Skelton & Oliveira, 2009)."
• [x] Please change ... allowing to change the stiffness without changing the shape. to ... allowing one to change the stiffness without changing the shape.
• [x] Please change These properties of tensegrity structure have led the researchers to use tensegrity concepts in various applications from... to : These properties of tensegrity structures have led researchers to use tensegrity concepts in various applications from...
• [x] Please rephrase: First, the static analysis provides the minimum mass of the tensegrity structure by optimizing for the tensile force in the strings and compressive force in the bars for no external force (self-equilibrium state) and in the presence of a given external force. The optimization problem is written as a Linear Programming to solve for the minimum mass required under yielding constraints.
  e.g. to Firstly, static analysis provides the minimum mass of the tensegrity structure by optimizing tensile forces in the strings and compressive forces in the bars in the absence of external forces (self-equilibrium state), and in the presence of a given external forces.
• [x] Please rephrase: The optimization problem is written as a Linear Programming to solve for the minimum mass required under yielding constraints. in particular as a linear programming sounds off. Should this be something like the following: In order to solve for the minimum mass required under yielding constraints, MOTES formulates the optimization problem as a "Linear Programming" problem.
• [x] Use Secondly instead of Second in "Second, the dynamic analysis"
• [x] Can you rephrase this ... and strings to show elastic behavior (Hookean) (if you agree) to ...and strings to exhibit linear elastic behaviour.
• [x] Should ...the dynamics response... be ...the dynamic response...?
• [x] Instead of The other disadvantage..., i would use Another disadvantage...
• [x] Explain the acronym DOF
• [x] Change this The use of non-minimal system results in... to something like The use of the non-minimal system results in... or The use of non-minimal systems results in...
• [x] ...the approximated errors at each... should probably be ...the approximation errors at each...?
• [x] Please rephrase ...Tensegrity robotic arm, Tensegrity antenna, Tensegrity lander, and Space Habitat, where we integrate structure and control design to get the required performance. to ...tensegrity robotic arms, tensegrity antennae, tensegrity landers, and space habitats, where we integrate structure and control design to get the required performance.
• [ ] When referring to class material at the end of the paper, can you add the university and discipline?

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

@ramaniitrgoyal92 Some points on your paper below (I read the version just before you regenerated the pdf, can you tell me what changes you made?). Thanks

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
I added the DOI for the paper title: 'Minimum mass and optimal complexity of planar tensegrity bridges' and added some missing spaces in between references of the first paragraphs of the paper. They were not coming out fine.

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

In Tensegrity systems (Skelton & Oliveira, 2009) dynamics... This reads better if the reference is moved after the word dynamics. Please make this change if you agree.

Agreed and changed. Working on the rest.

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

• [x] In ....of the class of Multi-body dynamics..., does multi-body need the capital letter? consider using a lower case letter. If you chose to use a lower case check your paper throughout.

Multi-body has been replaced with 'multi-body' throughout the paper.

• [x] Please use past tense for The name ‘Tensegrity’ is coined by..., should be `The name ‘Tensegrity’ was coined by...

Now the sentence read:
"The term tensegrity was coined by..."

• [x] Please rephrase: "The name ‘Tensegrity’ is coined by Buckminster Fuller (Fuller, 1959). The name comes by adding ‘Tensile +Integrity = Tensegrity’ for the art-form created by Ioganson (1921) and Snelson (1948) (Snelson, 1965).",
  I propose (unless I misunderstood): "The term tensegrity was first coined by Buckminster Fuller (Fuller, 1959), and is a portmanteau of "tensional integrity. Tensegrity structures also appeared in earlier art works by Ioganson (1921) and Snelson (1948) (Snelson, 1965)."

The paper now reads:
"The term tensegrity was first coined by Buckminster Fuller (Fuller, 1959), and is a portmanteau of "tensional integrity". Tensegrity structures also appeared in earlier artworks by Ioganson (1921) and Snelson (1948) (Snelson, 1965)."

• [x] Please rephrase "Skelton defines “Class-1” tensegrity system where no compressive members touch each other, and a “Class-k” system, where k number of compressive members are connected at a node Skelton & Oliveira, 2009).", I propose (unless I misunderstood): "Skelton defines a tensegrity structure as a“Class-1” system if none of the compressive members are connected, if on the other hand k compressive members are connected at a node, this is referred to as a “Class-k” system (Skelton & Oliveira, 2009)."

The paper now reads: "Skelton defines a tensegrity structure as a“Class-1” system if none of the compressive members are connected, if, on the other hand, $k$ compressive members are connected at a node, this is referred to as a “Class-$k$” system (Skelton & Oliveira, 2009)."

• [x] Please change ... allowing to change the stiffness without changing the shape. to ... allowing one to change the stiffness without changing the shape.

We have made the recommended change.

• [x] Please change These properties of tensegrity structure have led the researchers to use tensegrity concepts in various applications from... to : These properties of tensegrity structures have led researchers to use tensegrity concepts in various applications from...

We have made the recommended change.
The sentence now reads: These properties of tensegrity structures have led researchers to use tensegrity concepts in various applications from...

• [x] Please rephrase: First, the static analysis provides the minimum mass of the tensegrity structure by optimizing for the tensile force in the strings and compressive force in the bars for no external force (self-equilibrium state) and in the presence of a given external force. The optimization problem is written as a Linear Programming to solve for the minimum mass required under yielding constraints.

e.g. to Firstly, static analysis provides the minimum mass of the tensegrity structure by optimizing tensile forces in the strings and compressive forces in the bars in the absence of external forces (self-equilibrium state), and in the presence of a given external forces.

Agreed. The sentence now reads:
"Firstly, static analysis provides the minimum mass of the tensegrity structure by optimizing tensile forces in the strings and compressive forces in the bars in the absence of external forces (self-equilibrium state), and in the presence of given external forces."

• [x] Please rephrase: The optimization problem is written as a Linear Programming to solve for the minimum mass required under yielding constraints. in particular as a linear programming sounds off. Should this be something like the following: In order to solve for the minimum mass required under yielding constraints, MOTES formulates the optimization problem as a "Linear Programming" problem.

Agreed. The sentence now reads:
"In order to solve for the minimum mass required under yielding constraints, MOTES formulates the optimization problem as a "Linear Programming" problem."

• [x] Use Secondly instead of Second in "Second, the dynamic analysis"

Done. Added "Secondly".

• [x] Can you rephrase this ... and strings to show elastic behavior (Hookean) (if you agree) to ...and strings to exhibit linear elastic behaviour.

Agreed. The sentence now reads:
...and strings to exhibit linear elastic behavior.

• [x] Should ...the dynamics response... be ...the dynamic response...?

Yes, corrected everywhere in the paper.

• [x] Instead of The other disadvantage..., i would use Another disadvantage...

Thanks, updated.

• [x] Explain the acronym DOF

The sentence now reads:
"The approach uses 6 degrees of freedom (DOF)..."

• [x] Change this The use of non-minimal system results in... to something like The use of the non-minimal system results in... or The use of non-minimal systems results in...

The sentence now reads:
"The use of the non-minimal system results..."

• [x] ...the approximated errors at each... should probably be ...the approximation errors at each...?

The word "approximation" is the correct fit. Thanks!

• [x] Please rephrase ...Tensegrity robotic arm, Tensegrity antenna, Tensegrity lander, and Space Habitat, where we integrate structure and control design to get the required performance. to ...tensegrity robotic arms, tensegrity antennae, tensegrity landers, and space habitats, where we integrate structure and control design to get the required performance.

All the capital letters have been changed to smaller ones. The sentence now reads:
"...tensegrity robotic arm, tensegrity antenna, tensegrity lander, and space habitat, where we integrate structure and control design to get the required performance."

• [x] When referring to class material at the end of the paper, can you add the university and discipline?

The university and discipline has been added. The sentence now reads:
"The software was also used as a part of the class curriculum for the course '\textit{AERO-489/689 Design Elective: Advanced Statics and Dynamics of Flexible Structures: Tensegrity Systems}' which was offered in spring 2019 as an undergraduate-graduate class in the department of aerospace engineering at Texas A&M University, College Station."

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
We have provided a response to each question separately. All the changes can be seen in the main paper file also.

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Thank you so much for all the corrections and suggestions. We truly appreciate it.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@ramaniitrgoyal92 thanks for making those changes. At this point can you do the following:

• [ ] Can you archive a copy of the software on Zenodo and list the DOI of the archived version here? Can you make sure that the author list and the title of the archived version matches your paper?
• [x] Can you specify what latest version tag of the reviewed and archived software is? Are we still at v2.1 or has the version moved on?

Thanks

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Yes, I have uploaded the software to Zenodo, the link is: https://zenodo.org/record/3516295#.Xa8wIOhKhPY
The DOI is 10.21105/joss.01613

Yes, we have made sure the author list and the title of the archived version match our paper.
The version is still v2.1.

Thank you!

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@ramaniitrgoyal92 it looks like you used the "reserved" JOSS paper DOI for your Zenodo archive. If possible can you amend the Zenodo archive to carry its own Zenodo DOI? (You may have to remove this archived version and create a new one with its own Zenodo DOI). Once you've done this can you report back here with the Zenodo DOI? Thanks.

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Thanks for pointing out!
This is the new DOI we get:
10.5281/zenodo.3516978

Thank you!

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3516978 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3516978 is the archive.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@openjournals/joss-eics this author changed the name of the project and the paper title from: TEAM: Tensegrity Engineering Analysis Master to MOTES: Modeling of Tensegrity Structures.

Does this require any special treatment? If this is dealt with this is paper is good to be accepted.

[kthyng]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman hm, I am not sure. @arfon could you advise?

[arfon]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman hm, I am not sure. @arfon could you advise?

I think it should be fine without any special treatment.

[kthyng]

@arfon ok thanks.

@ramaniitrgoyal92 Can you go through your paper in detail and fix the citations? In a number of places, the spacing isn't correct around the references inline, and sometimes you use the parenthetical reference instead of inline, or vice versa. You can find examples for this here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#example-paper-and-bibliography.

Also in your first paragraph it looks like you reference Ioganson (1921) and Snelson (1948) but by name instead of by citation, and then reference @Snelson_1965. It would make more sense, if I am reading this correctly, to cite inline Ioganson and Snelson 1948 directly and not reference Snelson 1965.

After you give your paper a careful review, ping me and I'll check it again, thanks.

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

@kthyng Thanks for the input. Can you please take a look now?

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@kthyng @ramaniitrgoyal92 I think the sentence about the artworks still needs some work.
The sentence used to read Tensegrity structures also appeared in earlier artworks by Ioganson (1921) and Snelson (1948) (Snelson, 1965).. The way I read this is that the author is trying to say in this sentence that artworks appeared early (before the definition of the term tensegrity) by Ioganson (in the year 1921) and Snelson (in the year 1948) which featured tensegrity structures. So I assumed the names and dates refer to artists and dates the works were created in (so not citations, although they look a bit like they should be citations). Perhaps @ramaniitrgoyal92 can find a citation that described these artworks or the dates they were created and cite it there. I just checked the citation that is given there. The (Snelson, 1965) reference is to a patent and it does not refer to Ioganson, so it is unclear to me now what that citation is saying.
I get the impression @ramaniitrgoyal92 wants to say:
1) Buckminster Fuller coined the term
2) Artworks appeared earlier than that though
3) ??? Also Snelson (Snelson, 1965) had one of the first patents on this topic?

@ramaniitrgoyal92 can you clarify?

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman @kthyng This is eactly what I am trying to say:
Artworks were done by Ioganson in 1921 and Snelson in 1948. Fuller (advisor) of Snelson coined the term ' Tensegrity' in 1959 and then the first patent was filed by Snelson in 1965.

I found one legitimate reference talking about Ioganson's work in 1921 and Snelson's work in 1948.
The citation is (Sultan, 2009).
Do you guys suggest to write it like this?:
Tensegrity structures appeared in earlier artworks by Karl Ioganson in 1921 and Kenneth Snelson in 1948 (Sultan, 2009). The term tensegrity was first coined by Buckminster Fuller (1959), and is a portmanteau of "tensional integrity" and Snelson (1965) filed the first patents on this topic.

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[kthyng]

This looks reasonable to me. Sorry I originally misunderstood your intent, but I like it better now anyway :)

[kthyng]

@whedon accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

```Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

• 10.2514/6.2017-5141 is OK
• 10.2514/6.2018-5109 is OK
• 10.1061/9780784481899.082 is OK
• 10.1109/IROS.2017.8206022 is OK
• 10.1177/0956059919845330 is OK
• 10.23919/ACC.2017.7963738 is OK
• 10.1007/s11044-019-09666-4 is OK
• 10.1260/0266-3511.30.3-4.221 is OK
• 10.2514/6.2003-1978 is OK
• 10.21105/joss.01042 is OK
• 10.1016/S0065-2156(09)43002-3 is OK

MISSING DOIs

• None

INVALID DOIs

• None
  ```

[whedon]

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1051

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1051, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.
@whedon accept deposit=true

[kthyng]

@whedon accept deposit=true

[whedon]

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

[whedon]

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

[whedon]

🚨🚨🚨 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 :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1052
2. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01613
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...

[kthyng]

I still don't see the DOI link working, but I need to move on for now. I will check back later.

[ramaniitrgoyal92]

Thank you so much @kthyng! I appreciate all the help!

[arfon]

@kthyng - things look to be resolving OK now.

[kthyng]

Great! It's working now!

Congrats to @ramaniitrgoyal92 on your new paper!! Many thanks to reviewers @apsabelhaus, @vaishnavtv, and @ctdegroot for your time, effort, and expertise, and to @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman for editing!

[whedon]

:tada::tada::tada: Congratulations on your paper acceptance! :tada::tada::tada:

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01613/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01613)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01613">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01613/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01613/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01613

This is how it will look in your documentation:

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:

• Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss