Joss-reviews: [REVIEW]: Eyestream: An open WebSocket-based middleware for serializing and streaming eye tracker event data from Gazepoint GP3 HD research hardware

[whedon]

Submitting author: @MLHale (Matthew Hale)
Repository: https://github.com/MLHale/eyestream
Version: 1.1
Editor: @cMadan
Reviewer: @RingoHHuang, @adswa
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3549022

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/fd9d05f026d1acc24d023163eba34267"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/fd9d05f026d1acc24d023163eba34267/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/fd9d05f026d1acc24d023163eba34267/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/fd9d05f026d1acc24d023163eba34267)

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

@RingoHHuang & @adswa, 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 @cMadan know.

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

Review checklist for @RingoHHuang

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: 1.1
• [x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@MLHale) 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 @adswa

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: 1.1
• [x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@MLHale) 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?
• [ ] 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. @RingoHHuang, @adswa 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:

[cMadan]

@adswa @RingoHHuang, how are your reviews progressing? Thanks!

[adswa]

Thanks for the poke, and sorry for the delay @cMadan . I have a long train ride upcoming on sunday and plan to finish it then...

[cMadan]

@adswa, no worries, thanks for the update!

[adswa]

(My apologies - cancelled train, overcrowded replacement, no WIFI. I'll try to squeeze it in over the next two days)

[adswa]

Hey everyone, from my POV and based on what I am able to review given I don't have the hardware and OS available to test the full functionality, my review is finished.
I can confirm that the items on the checklist apply with the exception of "functionality". I have a minor issue open regarding the paper, but once this is addressed, I'd be happy to approve this submission - all with the explicit notion that I was not able to actually test the functionality. Thanks to @MLHale for providing an open source interface to make the raw data accessible, and for being so swift and diligent in replying to my issues, and thanks to everyone involved for this wonderful way of publishing and reviewing research items!

[RingoHHuang]

@cMadan - I'll find time to test the program with the Gazepoint hardware some time this week.

[MLHale]

@adswa - I have implemented your change list. Really thanks again for all of your review inputs and thoughtful contributions. I also like this collaborative process - it was been very constructive to receive and implement feedback in this way!

[cMadan]

@adswa, thanks for the update! That sounds good to me--I really appreciate your thorough efforts here.

@RingoHHuang, great, looking forward to it!

@MLHale, I'm glad to hear you're finding the review process here constructive :).

[RingoHHuang]

Hi @cMadan @MLHale @adswa,

I've just tested Eyestream using my Gazepoint 60 Hz eye-tracker and can confirm its functionality. My review of this submission is complete, and I'm ready to approve it. Thanks @MLHale for your help in addressing my many installation and testing questions, and for amending the documentation accordingly. I think Eyestream will be a valuable addition to the eye-tracking development community and will broaden the use case for Gazepoint eye-trackers. I'm excited to see future applications built off of this software. Thanks to all involved - it was a pleasure reviewing this submission!

[MLHale]

@adswa @RingoHHuang @cMadan - Thanks again for your time and effort in the review. I really appreciate all of the testing and improvements.

[MLHale]

Hi @cMadan - Is there anything else I need to do to move the review forward? Thanks!

[cMadan]

@RingoHHuang, thanks for reviewing this submission!

@MLHale, I need to do some final checks, but we're almost done! (So the review is with me now.)

[cMadan]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

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

[cMadan]

@MLHale, it looks like the bib needs a few fixes (missing year, missing capitalisation, missing page numbers).

[MLHale]

@cMaden - I will look over that and get it fixed tonight. Thanks

[danielskatz]

👋 @MLHale - did this happen?

[MLHale]

@danielskatz @cMadan - Yes, just now - my apologies. Thanks for the reminder. I apparently had an un-pushed commit.

Changes are pushed now on commit:
https://github.com/MLHale/eyestream/commit/7a95b7423f7ad2a4f3d1053025b890baa189f42d

[MLHale]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

PDF failed to compile for issue #1620 with the following error:

Error reading bibliography ./paper.bib (line 20, column 3):
unexpected "y"
expecting space, ",", white space or "}"
Error running filter pandoc-citeproc:
Filter returned error status 1
Looks like we failed to compile the PDF

[MLHale]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

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

[cMadan]

@whedon check references

[whedon]

Attempting to check references...

[whedon]

```Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

• 10.1145/2723872.2723882 is OK
• 10.24251/HICSS.2018.108 is OK
• 10.1109/ICWS.2015.49 is OK
• 10.1109/HICSS.2015.670 is OK
• 10.1016/j.bbr.2006.07.024 is OK
• 10.1145/507079.507082 is OK
• 10.1109/TCE.2012.6227433 is OK

MISSING DOIs

• https://doi.org/10.29268/stsc.2017.5.1.1 may be missing for title: Apriori Prediction of Phishing Victimization Based on Structural Content Factors

INVALID DOIs

• None
  ```

[cMadan]

@MLHale, can you fix the author name for the pyOpenGaze reference so it's the person's actual name (Edwin Dalmaijer)? Also add the DOI as suggested above, as it does seem correct (http://hipore.com/stsc/contents.html#v5.n1.2017).

After that we can move on to the last stages before acceptance.

[MLHale]

@whedon check references

[whedon]

Attempting to check references...

[whedon]

```Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

• 10.1145/2723872.2723882 is OK
• 10.24251/HICSS.2018.108 is OK
• https://doi.org/10.29268/stsc.2017.5.1.1 is OK
• 10.1109/ICWS.2015.49 is OK
• 10.1109/HICSS.2015.670 is OK
• 10.1016/j.bbr.2006.07.024 is OK
• 10.1145/507079.507082 is OK
• 10.1109/TCE.2012.6227433 is OK

MISSING DOIs

• None

INVALID DOIs

• None
  ```

[MLHale]

Hi @cMadan - Thanks for catching that! Sorry for the delay. I was away from my office for the past week or so. I made the corrections requested in the commit referenced above.

[cMadan]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

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

[cMadan]

@MLHale, everything looks good to me!

To move forward with accepting your submission, there are a few last things to take care of:

• [ ] Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here.
• [ ] Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo
• [ ] Check the Zenodo deposit 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.
• [ ] List the Zenodo DOI of the archived version here.

You may find this helpful: https://guides.github.com/activities/citable-code/

[MLHale]

Hi @cMadan - Thanks!

Here is the tagged release
https://github.com/MLHale/eyestream/releases/tag/1.1

[MLHale]

The Zenodo archive is available here:
10.5281/zenodo.3549022

[cMadan]

@whedon set 1.1 as version

[whedon]

OK. 1.1 is the version.

[cMadan]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3549022 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3549022 is the archive.

[cMadan]

@whedon accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

```Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

• 10.1145/2723872.2723882 is OK
• 10.24251/HICSS.2018.108 is OK
• https://doi.org/10.29268/stsc.2017.5.1.1 is OK
• 10.1109/ICWS.2015.49 is OK
• 10.1109/HICSS.2015.670 is OK
• 10.1016/j.bbr.2006.07.024 is OK
• 10.1145/507079.507082 is OK
• 10.1109/TCE.2012.6227433 is OK

MISSING DOIs

• None

INVALID DOIs

• None
  ```

[whedon]

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1111

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1111, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.
@whedon accept deposit=true

[cMadan]

@openjournals/joss-eics, I think we're all set to accept here!

[MLHale]

@cMadan - Thanks again for all of your help. I want to reiterate how awesome this review process has been. Seriously the most transparent, useful, and enjoyable review process I've seen.

I really like that reviewer feedback is so collaborative, can be incorporated into the work in near real-time, and then iterated on if the fix didn't address the feedback. This kind of process makes for a better product and is (I hope) the future of academia and publishing!

I'll definitely be publishing in this venue again!

[kthyng]

Hi @MLHale I've made some tweaks to your paper.md and paper.bib to improve spacing around the references and preserve capitalization (mostly). Please merge PRs 11 and 12 if you please.

[MLHale]

@kthyng Thanks for these improvements. I just accepted the PRs.

[kthyng]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

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

[kthyng]

Ok looks good!

[kthyng]

@whedon accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

```Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

• 10.1145/2723872.2723882 is OK
• 10.24251/HICSS.2018.108 is OK
• https://doi.org/10.29268/stsc.2017.5.1.1 is OK
• 10.1109/ICWS.2015.49 is OK
• 10.1109/HICSS.2015.670 is OK
• 10.1016/j.bbr.2006.07.024 is OK
• 10.1145/507079.507082 is OK
• 10.1109/TCE.2012.6227433 is OK

MISSING DOIs

• None

INVALID DOIs

• None
  ```

[whedon]

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1123

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1123, 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/1124
2. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01620
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]

Congrats to @MLHale on your new paper! Thanks to editor @cMadan and reviewers @RingoHHuang and @adswa — we wouldn't be here without you!

[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.01620/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01620)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01620">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01620/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01620/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01620

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

[MLHale]

@kthyng - Thanks!