Joss-reviews: [REVIEW]: MDL Suite: A language, generator and compiler for describing mazes

[whedon]

Submitting author: @akashnag (Akash Nag)
Repository: https://github.com/akashnag/MDL-Suite
Version: 1.0
Editor: @drvinceknight
Reviewer: @rreinecke, @gradvohl
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3666101

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/55f3f5af8d71865410ea65e460f618af"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/55f3f5af8d71865410ea65e460f618af/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/55f3f5af8d71865410ea65e460f618af/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/55f3f5af8d71865410ea65e460f618af)

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

@rreinecke & @gradvohl, 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 @drvinceknight know.

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

Review checklist for @rreinecke

Conflict of interest

• [x] 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

• [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] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@Akash-Nag) 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 functionality 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] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• [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] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• [x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• [x] 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 @gradvohl

Conflict of interest

• [x] 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

• [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] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@Akash-Nag) 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

• [x] 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

• [x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• [x] 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?
• [x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• [x] 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]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @rreinecke, @gradvohl 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:

[rreinecke]

@Akash-Nag Please fix Akash-Nag/MDL-Suite#3 (and Akash-Nag/MDL-Suite#2 ) to enable me to further review your submission. Thanks!

[rreinecke]

@Akash-Nag please address the following issues https://github.com/Akash-Nag/MDL-Suite/issues/5 https://github.com/Akash-Nag/MDL-Suite/issues/6 . Especially the automated tests will help to understand your code better. Without them I'm currently not able to proceed with the review. Please also consider improving your code documentation further.
If you have questions please feel free to ask in the according issues.

[danielskatz]

👋 @Akash-Nag - can you update us on this review and your progress in addressing the issues discussed above?

[akashnag]

All the issues raised by the reviewers have been resolved, except for the
Tests. Incorporating JUnit tests is difficult for a project of this type
since this is not a library that can be invoked. Instead, it is a tool
whose output is an image file. Obviously, checking whether the generated
maze-image conforms to the input specifications requires visual inspection
or outlandish AI-driven image recognition algorithms beyond the scope of
this project. For internal functions which do not generate the image
directly, it may be possible to write tests but the difficulty there lies
with the fact that most of these functions work with matrices, and again,
checking whether these maze matrices conform to the specifications will
require their own algorithms that are unknown to me. The code for the tests
will, in all likelihood, be larger and more complicated than the source
code itself. Therefore, I would request you to kindly proceed with the
review for this project as it stands now. For your reference, I have made
the following changes:

1. The readme now contains detailed installation and build instructions,
   names of contributors, etc.
2. The JavaDocs has been made available
3. A shell script has been provided for automated generation of random
   mazes, for testing purposes

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019, 19:25 Daniel S. Katz, [e-mail] wrote:

👋 @Akash-Nag https://github.com/Akash-Nag - can you update us on this
review and your progress in addressing the issues discussed above?

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/1815?email_source=notifications&email_token=ALUWTRYXNIHROLNTRD524ILQRWBGRA5CNFSM4JBKNNM2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEC44OOQ#issuecomment-549046074,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALUWTR5C3PRR57OB2Z23IZDQRWBGRANCNFSM4JBKNNMQ
.

[gradvohl]

Regarding the docs, I think the author solved this issue. However, when I tried to run, I still get the following error:
Error: A JNI error has occurred, please check your installation and try again Exception in thread "main" java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError: mdlg/MDLG has been compiled by a more recent version of the Java Runtime (class file version 54.0), this version of the Java Runtime only recognizes class file versions up to 52.0 at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass1(Native Method) at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass(ClassLoader.java:756) at java.security.SecureClassLoader.defineClass(SecureClassLoader.java:142) at java.net.URLClassLoader.defineClass(URLClassLoader.java:468) at java.net.URLClassLoader.access$100(URLClassLoader.java:74) at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(URLClassLoader.java:369) at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(URLClassLoader.java:363) at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method) at java.net.URLClassLoader.findClass(URLClassLoader.java:362) at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:418) at sun.misc.Launcher$AppClassLoader.loadClass(Launcher.java:352) at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:351) at sun.launcher.LauncherHelper.checkAndLoadMain(LauncherHelper.java:495)
Should I run it with a specific java version? If so, this should be highlighted in the README.md. as well as in the docs.

[akashnag]

The specific version of Java with which to run this tool has already been
highlighted in the readme under the "Dependencies and Build Instructions"
section, namely: Oracle Java 10.0.2

On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, 05:20 André Leon S. Gradvohl, [e-mail]
wrote:

Regarding the docs, I think the author solved this issue. However, when I
tried to run, I still get the following error:

Exception in thread "main" java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError: mdlg/MDLG has been compiled by a more recent version of the Java Runtime (class file version 54.0), this version of the Java Runtime only recognizes class file versions up to 52.0
at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass1(Native Method)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass(ClassLoader.java:756)
at java.security.SecureClassLoader.defineClass(SecureClassLoader.java:142)
at java.net.URLClassLoader.defineClass(URLClassLoader.java:468)
at java.net.URLClassLoader.access$100(URLClassLoader.java:74)
at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(URLClassLoader.java:369)
at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(URLClassLoader.java:363)
at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
at java.net.URLClassLoader.findClass(URLClassLoader.java:362)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:418)
at sun.misc.Launcher$AppClassLoader.loadClass(Launcher.java:352)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:351)
at sun.launcher.LauncherHelper.checkAndLoadMain(LauncherHelper.java:495)

Should I run it with a specific java version? If so, this should be
highlighted in the README.md. as well as in the docs.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/1815?email_source=notifications&email_token=ALUWTR7IFRZ63NSHQ25ZT23QR5PVXA5CNFSM4JBKNNM2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEC6AGDQ#issuecomment-549192462,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALUWTR4YX2MGCMKH6YCBXNTQR5PVXANCNFSM4JBKNNMQ
.

[rreinecke]

All the issues raised by the reviewers have been resolved, except for the Tests. Incorporating JUnit tests is difficult for a project of this type since this is not a library that can be invoked. Instead, it is a tool whose output is an image file. Obviously, checking whether the generated maze-image conforms to the input specifications requires visual inspection or outlandish AI-driven image recognition algorithms beyond the scope of this project. For internal functions which do not generate the image directly, it may be possible to write tests but the difficulty there lies with the fact that most of these functions work with matrices, and again, checking whether these maze matrices conform to the specifications will require their own algorithms that are unknown to me. The code for the tests will, in all likelihood, be larger and more complicated than the source code itself. Therefore, I would request you to kindly proceed with the review for this project as it stands now. For your reference, I have made the following changes: 1. The readme now contains detailed installation and build instructions, names of contributors, etc. 2. The JavaDocs has been made available 3. A shell script has been provided for automated generation of random mazes, for testing purposes
…
On Sat, 2 Nov 2019, 19:25 Daniel S. Katz, @.*> wrote: wave @Akash-Nag https://github.com/Akash-Nag - can you update us on this review and your progress in addressing the issues discussed above? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1815?email_source=notifications&email_token=ALUWTRYXNIHROLNTRD524ILQRWBGRA5CNFSM4JBKNNM2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEC44OOQ#issuecomment-549046074>, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALUWTR5C3PRR57OB2Z23IZDQRWBGRANCNFSM4JBKNNMQ .

@drvinceknight @danielskatz I cannot confirm the statement given by @Akash-Nag . Yes all other concerns except the community guidelines and tests have been addressed. However, I do not agree with the assessment that unit tests are impossible and I find it bewildering that our suggestions as reviewers are fully ignored. I understand that JOSS has a very constructive review process, thus I opened an issue more than two weeks ago suggesting unit tests and that I would be happy to provide additional inputs if necessary. This was completely ignored by @Akash-Nag till the statement above was given. As a computer scientist I cannot agree that test are not possible. Leaving the image generation aside, the software contains a maze generator that is able to produce random mazes. It is unclear to me if they are always solvable? If so, how do you prove that? Can they also be unsolvable? It seems you are using recursive-division to generate them. Then at least test the method that is implementing that algorithm. @Akash-Nag writes that the software is intended to be used for research. IF that is the case it needs to be clear how the software works. You can only ensure this by providing test cases that verify this behavior.

[drvinceknight]

@Akash-Nag I fully agree with @rreinecke and do not feel that tests are impossible. Is this something you will be able to address?

[akashnag]

I apologize for any misunderstanding that may have occurred. I never
intended to say that tests would be impossible, but only very difficult
given the type of the project.

Furthermore, I was not sure which aspects of the project could be actually
tested as I was sure that neither the maze image generation nor the path
markers could be feasibly tested to ensure they conform to the
specifications. Due to this confusion I was not able to reply to the issue,
but in restrospect I think I should have asked for more clarification, and
I am very sorry for that. However, now that you mention about the proof of
solvability of the generated mazes, I think there will be two ways of going
about it.

Firsly, there can be a formal proof of the correctness of the algorithm in
the paper itself, but I think the format of JOSS papers will not be able to
accomodate that. Secondly, I can include a function which, given a
generated maze matrix, will print out any one path (as a list of
coordinates) from the entrance to the exit, or alternately, a test which
will return true/false depending on whether or not a path exists. Kindly
state which do you want.

On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, 23:12 Vince Knight, [e-mail] wrote:

@Akash-Nag https://github.com/Akash-Nag I fully agree with @rreinecke
https://github.com/rreinecke and do not feel that tests are impossible.
Is this something you will be able to address?

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/1815?email_source=notifications&email_token=ALUWTR4NUO5LSGGWS5SVVN3QSBNHJA5CNFSM4JBKNNM2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEDADEYI#issuecomment-549466721,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALUWTRZTHEIKXYDJ2ZPJURDQSBNHJANCNFSM4JBKNNMQ
.

[rreinecke]

I apologize for any misunderstanding that may have occurred. I never intended to say that tests would be impossible, but only very difficult given the type of the project. Furthermore, I was not sure which aspects of the project could be actually tested as I was sure that neither the maze image generation nor the path markers could be feasibly tested to ensure they conform to the specifications. Due to this confusion I was not able to reply to the issue, but in restrospect I think I should have asked for more clarification, and I am very sorry for that. However, now that you mention about the proof of solvability of the generated mazes, I think there will be two ways of going about it. Firsly, there can be a formal proof of the correctness of the algorithm in the paper itself, but I think the format of JOSS papers will not be able to accomodate that. Secondly, I can include a function which, given a generated maze matrix, will print out any one path (as a list of coordinates) from the entrance to the exit, or alternately, a test which will return true/false depending on whether or not a path exists. Kindly state which do you want.
…
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, 23:12 Vince Knight, @.*> wrote: @Akash-Nag https://github.com/Akash-Nag I fully agree with @rreinecke https://github.com/rreinecke and do not feel that tests are impossible. Is this something you will be able to address? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1815?email_source=notifications&email_token=ALUWTR4NUO5LSGGWS5SVVN3QSBNHJA5CNFSM4JBKNNM2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEDADEYI#issuecomment-549466721>, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALUWTRZTHEIKXYDJ2ZPJURDQSBNHJANCNFSM4JBKNNMQ .

@Akash-Nag please see https://github.com/Akash-Nag/MDL-Suite/issues/5 for reply and further discussion.

[drvinceknight]

@Akash-Nag any update on this?

[rreinecke]

@Akash-Nag any update on this?

@drvinceknight I've asked him the same last week and it seems that he is very busy and currently not able to complete the suggested changes. I've suggested a re-submission to him but advised him to ask the handling editor (aka you) about how to handle this.

[drvinceknight]

Thanks, I'll wait to hear from them to confirm before I close this.

@openjournals/jose-eics can I confirm the process for closing ("rejecting for now") a submission? Is it as simple as closing this issue or is there some @whedon magic I should use instead?

[labarba]

You can add the "paused" label

[rreinecke]

@drvinceknight for tracking completed reviews via e.g. publons this labeling is not really satisfying. If this project is never revived this does not count as a review. I'm very happy to review for JOSS anytime but it would be nice if you guys would appreciate that work with a completed review mail that at least allows to track that effort.

[akashnag]

@drvinceknight kindly advise regarding the process of resubmission. I'm sorry for not being able to make the necessary changes right now as I am very busy with too many unforeseen assignments. I apologize for the inconvenience caused. Please advise whether I should withdraw the paper (from JOSS website) and then resubmit later? Or, can/should this review be just paused, etc. in some way?

[drvinceknight]

@rreinecke I understand completely. Thank you again for your time and work reviewing the paper. It's greatly appreciated.

@rreinecke and @Akash-Nag I am just clarifying the process myself via email, I will get back to you here as soon as I'm confident in the correct path forward.

[drvinceknight]

Hi @rreinecke and @Akash-Nag.

Thank you for your patience.

I completely realise the effort and need for recognition of said effort of reviewers @rreinecke so once again; thank you and hopefully I can explain the options available so that we can choose the best one that importantly works for @Akash-Nag and the paper.

Option 1: The paper is withdrawn. This is the best option if @Akash-Nag is unlikely to come back to this in the next 3 months or so.

Option 2: We leave the paused option - this is best if @Akash-Nag is likely to come back to this in the next 3 months or so. @rreinecke I can set @whedon up to set a reminder so that we all do not forget, in which case in 3 months time we can revisit and if @Akash-Nag is unlikely to make progress we can go with option 1 at that stage.

Which way forward is preferable at this stage?

[akashnag]

Hi,

Personally I would have liked to go with Option 1 at this stage
because I do not want to make a commitment I am not sure I can keep,
considering my present engagements. However, as @rreinecke put forward
an important point regarding his review efforts, I do not want to
undermine that. Therefore, I would like to go with Option 2 and kindly
ask @DrVinceKnight to mark this review as paused, and I would try my
best to complete the tests, etc. within the 3 months duration.

[drvinceknight]

Assuming this is fine with you @rreinecke then the review is marked as pause. I will set a reminder for all of us of 3 months.

[drvinceknight]

@whedon remind @Akash-Nag in three months

[whedon]

Reminder set for @Akash-Nag in three months

[drvinceknight]

@whedon remind @rreinecke in three months

[whedon]

Reminder set for @rreinecke in three months

[drvinceknight]

@whedon remind @drvinceknight in three months

[whedon]

Reminder set for @drvinceknight in three months

[akashnag]

Hi,

My paper/project was on pause as you might remember because I was not
able to complete the requirements then. I have now updated my
repository with JUnit tests, but I am not sure how to change the
status of the project. Therefore, I am replying to this email.
@rreinecke Could you please check if these were the tests you wanted,
and if anything more is required?

On 03/12/2019, whedon [e-mail] wrote:

Reminder set for @drvinceknight in three months

--
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/1815#issuecomment-561293257

Akash Nag

[drvinceknight]

I have removed the pause label.

[rreinecke]

@Akash-Nag Well done. See Akash-Nag/MDL-Suite#5 for my reply.

[rreinecke]

@Akash-Nag looks like we are almost done from my side. See Akash-Nag/MDL-Suite#7 and Akash-Nag/MDL-Suite#8

[rreinecke]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

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

[rreinecke]

@drvinceknight @Akash-Nag all done and accepted from my side.

[gradvohl]

From my side is also ok. Congrats.

[akashnag]

@rreinecke @gradvohl @drvinceknight Thanks.

On Sun, 9 Feb 2020, 18:30 André Leon S. Gradvohl, [e-mail]
wrote:

From my side is also ok. Congrats.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/1815?email_source=notifications&email_token=ALUWTR7FJ7SCNFIJM5QP5QDRB75AJA5CNFSM4JBKNNM2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOELGLXSY#issuecomment-583842763,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALUWTR2CY2OWYDZB4G3PZZTRB75AJANCNFSM4JBKNNMQ
.

[drvinceknight]

@whedon generate proof

[whedon]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@whedon commands

[drvinceknight]

@whedon check references

[whedon]

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1109/confluence.2014.6949354 may be missing for title: Survey on techniques used in autonomous maze solving robot
- https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.40.1.353 may be missing for title: Maze Suite 1.0: A complete set of tools to prepare, present, and analyze navigational and spatial cognitive neuroscience experiments

INVALID DOIs

- None

[drvinceknight]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

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

[drvinceknight]

@Akash-Nag it looks like you are missing two DOIs:

• https://doi.org/10.1109/confluence.2014.6949354 may be missing for title: Survey on techniques used in autonomous maze solving robot
• https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.40.1.353 may be missing for title: Maze Suite 1.0: A complete set of tools to prepare, present, and analyze navigational and spatial cognitive neuroscience experiments

[akashnag]

I have now added the 2 missing DOIs to the references.

Thanks,

On 10/02/2020, Vince Knight [e-mail] wrote:

@Akash-Nag it looks like you are missing two DOIs:

• https://doi.org/10.1109/confluence.2014.6949354 may be missing for title:
  Survey on techniques used in autonomous maze solving robot
• https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.40.1.353 may be missing for title: Maze Suite
  1.0: A complete set of tools to prepare, present, and analyze navigational
  and spatial cognitive neuroscience experiments

--
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/1815#issuecomment-584214667

--
Akash Nag
Department of Computer Science
M.U.C. Women's College,
Burdwan 713104, West Bengal, India
Mobile: [phone]
E-mail: nag.akash.[email protected]

[akashnag]

This is to inform you that I have updated my username (reclaimed my older profile), and I had already informed @arfon that I was going to do so. For the time being, GitHub will automatically redirect my old repository for this review at: https://github.com/Akash-Nag/MDL-Suite to the new repository at: https://github.com/akashnag/MDL-Suite till any new user claims my now-defunct username and creates a new repository with the same name. I kindly request the journal admin to update my repository URL for this paper to: https://github.com/akashnag/MDL-Suite so that any inadvertent links to a different repository do not occur in future.

Thanks

[arfon]

@akashnag done.

[drvinceknight]

@whedon check references

[whedon]

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1109/CONFLUENCE.2014.6949354 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.353 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[drvinceknight]

Sorry @akashnag but you haven't added the DOIs correctly, the DOI for the first one is actually just 10.1109/confluence.2014.6949354 here's a full example of a bib file if that's helpful: https://github.com/drvinceknight/Nashpy/blob/master/paper.bib

[akashnag]

I'm sorry, I have now correctly updated the DOIs.

On 12/02/2020, Vince Knight [e-mail] wrote:

Sorry @akashnag but you haven't added the DOIs correctly, the DOI for the
first one is actually just 10.1109/confluence.2014.6949354 here's a full
example of a bib file if that's helpful:
https://github.com/drvinceknight/Nashpy/blob/master/paper.bib

--
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/1815#issuecomment-584805408

--
Akash Nag
Department of Computer Science
M.U.C. Women's College,
Burdwan 713104, West Bengal, India
Mobile: [phone]
E-mail: nag.akash.[email protected]

[drvinceknight]

@whedon check references

[whedon]

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/CONFLUENCE.2014.6949354 is OK
- 10.3758/BRM.40.1.353 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[drvinceknight]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

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

[drvinceknight]

Ok everything looks good to me.

@akashnag could you make a tagged release and archive. Once you've done that can you report the version number and archive DOI here.

Please make sure that the archive deposit has the correct metadata (title and author list).

[danielskatz]

@drvinceknight - before you turn this over to the EiCs, please also proof-read the paper and references and make sure you are satisfied with them

[akashnag]

I have archived the repository on Zenodo, with version 1.0
Release URL (GitHub): https://github.com/akashnag/MDL-Suite/releases/tag/1.0
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3666101
DOI URL: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3666101

[akashnag]

Update: The title for the Zenodo archive did not match the paper title, I have now fixed it.

[drvinceknight]

@drvinceknight - before you turn this over to the EiCs, please also proof-read the paper and references and make sure you are satisfied with them

Thanks @danielskatz I have actually been doing that but realise that for two recent papers when I handed over to you that you made some subsequent edits. If this is the case here as well I think I'd appreciate a chat where I can understand how I can improve what I'm doing.

[drvinceknight]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3666101 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3666101 is the archive.

[drvinceknight]

@openjournals/joss-eics this paper is now ready to be accepted. (I believe.)

[danielskatz]

@whedon accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/CONFLUENCE.2014.6949354 is OK
- 10.3758/BRM.40.1.353 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1310

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1310, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.
@whedon accept deposit=true

[danielskatz]

👋 @akashnag - please merge https://github.com/akashnag/MDL-Suite/pull/9 and https://github.com/akashnag/MDL-Suite/pull/10

[akashnag]

@danielskatz I have merged the two PRs

[danielskatz]

@whedon accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/CONFLUENCE.2014.6949354 is OK
- 10.3758/BRM.40.1.353 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1311

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1311, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.
@whedon accept deposit=true

[danielskatz]

@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/1312
2. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01815
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...

[danielskatz]

Thanks to @rreinecke & @gradvohl for reviewing, and @drvinceknight for editing!

And congratulations to @akashnag (Akash Nag)!

[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.01815/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01815)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01815">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01815/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01815/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01815

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

[akashnag]

Thank you so much @drvinceknight @rreinecke @gradvohl and @danielskatz

[drvinceknight]

Congratulations @akashnag!

@rreinecke @gradvohl thank you both for your time reviewing this paper. Your efforts as reviewers is vital to the process and really appreciated :+1: 🙇