[PRE REVIEW]: Moead-framework : a modular MOEA/D python framework

[whedon]

Submitting author: @geoffreyp (Geoffrey Pruvost)
Repository: https://github.com/moead-framework/framework
Version: 0.5.7.1
Editor: @melissawm
Reviewers: @sjvrijn, @chkoar
Managing EiC: Kevin M. Moerman

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

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

Author instructions

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

@geoffreyp if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

Editor instructions

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

@whedon commands

[whedon]

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

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

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

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]

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[whedon]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/TEVC.2008.925798 is OK
- 10.1109/TEVC.2007.892759 is OK
- 10.1109/CEC.2009.4982949 is OK
- 10.1145/3377930.3390149 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-43680-3_9 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v092.i06 is OK
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2990567 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02338 is OK
- 10.1145/2739482.2768462 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.09 s (593.2 files/s, 30383.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          49            549            236           1648
Markdown                         2             50              0            124
TeX                              1             10              0            110
YAML                             3             14              9             67
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            55            623            245           1949
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Statistical information for the repository '0642baeb5b9ddc8ee0fd9878' was
gathered on 2020/12/08.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Geoffrey Pruvost                60          2461            661          100.00

Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:

Author                     Rows      Stability          Age       % in comments
Geoffrey Pruvost           2433           98.9          4.0                5.88

[whedon]

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

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@geoffreyp given that this submission is on the small side (in therms of number of lines of code). I have flagged this submission for an additional scope check by the editorial board. In particular our board will now discuss if it meets the substantial scholarly effort criterion for review by JOSS. We should get back to you sometime next week.

[kthyng]

Hi @geoffreyp, your paper is missing a section titled "Statement of Need." It also should start with a high level scientific summary that a scientific person not in your area would understand.

[kthyng]

@melissawm are you able to edit this submission?

[kthyng]

@whedon invite @melissawm as editor

[whedon]

@melissawm has been invited to edit this submission.

[geoffreyp]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

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

[geoffreyp]

Hello @kthyng, thank you for your feedback. The paper is updated with the "Statement of Need" section.

[melissawm]

Yes, I can edit this submission. Thanks @kthyng !

[melissawm]

@whedon assign @melissawm as editor

[whedon]

OK, the editor is @melissawm

[melissawm]

Hello @geoffreyp ! Do you have any suggestions for reviewers from the JOSS reviewer list?

[geoffreyp]

Hello @melissawm, this is a list of reviewers I could find in my domain/topic:
sjvrijn, jmadera, jbytecode, petroniocandido, chkoar, andim

[melissawm]

Thank you, @geoffreyp , and really sorry for the delay in responding.

[melissawm]

Hello, @sjvrijn @jmadera! Would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[sjvrijn]

Hi @melissawm, looks relevant to me indeed, I can review

[melissawm]

@whedon assign @sjvrijn as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, @sjvrijn is now a reviewer

[melissawm]

Hello, @petroniocandido! Would you be willing/available to review this submission for JOSS?

[melissawm]

Hello, @chkoar! Would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[chkoar]

Hey @melissawm, I'd be happy to help.

[melissawm]

@whedon add @chkoar as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, @chkoar is now a reviewer

[melissawm]

Thank you both, and @geoffreyp! Now that we have two reviewers, we can open the REVIEW issue - this PRE-REVIEW issue will be closed automatically, and we'll continue the work there.

[melissawm]

@whedon start review

[whedon]

OK, I've started the review over in #2974.