[REVIEW]: spiketools: a Python package for analyzing single-unit neural activity #5268

editorialbot · 2023-03-17T20:50:51Z

Submitting author: @TomDonoghue (Thomas Donoghue)
Repository: https://github.com/spiketools/spiketools
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 0.2.0
Editor: @AJQuinn
Reviewers: @rly, @neuromusic, @djsaunde
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10076024

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/24f417d2a7fc5a29f001dab5e37ce1c0"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/24f417d2a7fc5a29f001dab5e37ce1c0/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/24f417d2a7fc5a29f001dab5e37ce1c0/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/24f417d2a7fc5a29f001dab5e37ce1c0)

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

@rly & @neuromusic & @djsaunde, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @AJQuinn know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @rly

📝 Checklist for @djsaunde

📝 Checklist for @neuromusic

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

editorialbot · 2023-03-17T20:50:54Z

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

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

@editorialbot commands

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

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2023-03-17T20:50:56Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.19 s (659.0 files/s, 73759.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                         107           2941           5090           4061
Markdown                         3             85              0            243
reStructuredText                 7            271            367            233
TeX                              1              9              0            113
make                             2             34             64             75
YAML                             2              6              9             53
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           122           3346           5530           4778
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot · 2023-03-17T20:50:58Z

Wordcount for paper.md is 800

editorialbot · 2023-03-17T20:51:01Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/nrn3241 is OK
- 10.7554/eLife.61834 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01272 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.3389/fninf.2014.00010 is OK
- 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2015.04.007 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-011 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-03-17T20:53:52Z

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

AJQuinn · 2023-03-17T21:49:44Z

👋🏼 @rly, @neuromusic, @djsaunde this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

As a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering

@editorialbot generate my checklist

as the top of a new comment in this thread.

These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention #5268 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if any of you require some more time. We can also use EditorialBot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@AJQuinn) if you have any questions/concerns.

AJQuinn · 2023-03-27T12:00:34Z

Hi @rly, @neuromusic, @djsaunde - it's been around a week. I'd like to quickly check in and make sure that you all have what you need to start the review and aren't facing any issues? Please let me know if so and we can try to sort something!

Cheers

djsaunde · 2023-03-27T14:01:53Z

Review checklist for @djsaunde

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

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

General checks

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

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

rly · 2023-04-01T23:33:54Z

Review checklist for @rly

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

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

General checks

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

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

AJQuinn · 2023-04-17T12:59:27Z

Hi @neuromusic - have you been able to get started with the checklist and review? We're hoping to get all reviews in over the next couple of weeks.

No problem if you need a bit more time, just let me know here or via an email.

AJQuinn · 2023-05-11T13:04:32Z

Hi @djsaunde - Thanks for filling out the checklist. Are there still open issues that need to be resolved before you can sign off on the remaining sections? If so, could you add a link to this thread in the issue description so that I can keep a track of them from here?

Thank you!

djsaunde · 2023-05-11T15:31:21Z

This issue is currently blocking " Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems)." Otherwise, the checklist is complete (apologies for the delay).

TomDonoghue · 2023-05-11T20:42:15Z

Hey all - first thing, thank you to everyone's work on this review, we greatly appreciate it!

@rly : thanks for your review, and suggestions you made - we have made those updates through the issues!

@djsaunde : thanks also for the review and for your comments. For the specifics of the spiketools issue you opened (spiketools/spiketools#171) this has been addressed in a literal way by removing the broken link (there some notes here contextualizing that that broken link was due to adapting materials from another project and not because there is a page that could not be navigated to). For this project, our main set of examples are in the tutorials, which covers examples of key sub-modules (as well as having doctest examples within a large number of function docstrings). For the purpose of the review, do you find the available materials sufficient for confirming the "example usage" topic, or are you leaving this topic open because you think the project should have some additional examples / doc pages?

@AJQuinn - thank you for handling this submission!
I'm not sure if @neuromusic is still expected to respond here, and if not, do we need to find another reviewer, or is two sufficient?

djsaunde · 2023-05-11T20:44:31Z

@TomDonoghue Yup, that will do, thanks. I've updated my checklist s.t. it is complete.

rly · 2023-05-11T20:54:23Z

@TomDonoghue Thanks for making those updates! The work is solid. I appreciated the tutorials.

There are no blocking issues from my standpoint.

AJQuinn · 2023-05-12T11:08:40Z

Fantastic, thanks @djsaunde and @rly! Much appreciated.

@TomDonoghue, I've been in touch with @neuromusic off-thread and there should be a final review coming in early next week. Apologies for the delay on this, should be able to move quickly from next week.

TomDonoghue · 2023-05-19T14:00:26Z

Hey @AJQuinn - any updates from @neuromusic?

neuromusic · 2023-05-19T14:01:57Z

Sorry for the delay. I'll get it done later today.

neuromusic · 2023-05-20T16:38:04Z

Review checklist for @neuromusic

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

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

General checks

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

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

AJQuinn · 2023-11-07T15:46:59Z

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot · 2023-11-07T15:47:06Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/nrn3241 is OK
- 10.7554/eLife.61834 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01272 is OK
- 10.1002/hipo.23539 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a is OK
- 10.3389/fninf.2014.00010 is OK
- 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2015.04.007 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-011 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

AJQuinn · 2023-11-07T15:47:57Z

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.10076024 as archive

editorialbot · 2023-11-07T15:47:59Z

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.10076024

editorialbot · 2023-11-07T15:48:00Z

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

AJQuinn · 2023-11-07T15:48:56Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2023-11-07T15:50:00Z

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

AJQuinn · 2023-11-08T11:29:01Z

Hi @TomDonoghue looks good to me, happy to recommend to accept. A final check will be carried out by an Editor in Chief who may raise additional points if anything has been missed.

One point that might come up (not certain how strict the policy is here) is that the Zenodo repo name for v0.2.0 now doesn't match the paper title - you can update this in the metadata and might want to do that now.

AJQuinn · 2023-11-08T11:30:25Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

AJQuinn · 2023-11-08T12:25:49Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2023-11-08T12:25:51Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2023-11-08T12:25:55Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/nrn3241 is OK
- 10.7554/eLife.61834 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01272 is OK
- 10.1002/hipo.23539 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a is OK
- 10.3389/fninf.2014.00010 is OK
- 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2015.04.007 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-011 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-11-08T12:28:13Z

👋 @openjournals/bcm-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#4767, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-11-09T14:22:22Z

@TomDonoghue as AEiC I am here to help process this work for acceptance in JOSS. I have check the paper, this review, the repository, and the archive link. Most seems in order. However, I do have the points below that require your attention:

Please update the archive title to match the paper title: spiketools: a Python package for analyzing single-unit neural activity
Please add the city and country to your affiliations e.g. New York, United States of America (ensure you spell out the country, so do not use USA).

TomDonoghue · 2023-11-09T16:59:21Z

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman - I have updated the title on Zenodo and our affiliations on the paper! Let me know if there is anything else I should do / update!

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-11-14T12:49:25Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2023-11-14T12:50:41Z

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

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-11-14T13:11:46Z

@TomDonoghue all looks good now. Thanks.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-11-14T13:11:53Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2023-11-14T13:11:55Z

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

editorialbot · 2023-11-14T13:13:21Z

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Donoghue
  given-names: Thomas
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5911-0472"
- family-names: Maesta-Pereira
  given-names: Sandra
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6522-8311"
- family-names: Han
  given-names: Claire Zhixian
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9710-8381"
- family-names: Qasim
  given-names: Salman Ehtesham
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8739-5962"
- family-names: Jacobs
  given-names: Joshua
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1807-6882"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10076024
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Donoghue
    given-names: Thomas
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5911-0472"
  - family-names: Maesta-Pereira
    given-names: Sandra
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6522-8311"
  - family-names: Han
    given-names: Claire Zhixian
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9710-8381"
  - family-names: Qasim
    given-names: Salman Ehtesham
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8739-5962"
  - family-names: Jacobs
    given-names: Joshua
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1807-6882"
  date-published: 2023-11-14
  doi: 10.21105/joss.05268
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 91
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 5268
  title: "spiketools: a Python package for analyzing single-unit neural
    activity"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05268"
  volume: 8
title: "spiketools: a Python package for analyzing single-unit neural
  activity"

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

editorialbot · 2023-11-14T13:13:24Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2023-11-14T13:13:25Z

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.05268 joss-papers#4778
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05268
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-11-21T14:12:29Z

Congratulations on this paper @TomDonoghue !

Thanks for editing @AJQuinn! And a special thanks to the reviewers: @rly, @neuromusic, @djsaunde

editorialbot · 2023-11-21T14:12:31Z

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

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.05268/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05268)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05268">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05268/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05268/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05268

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The 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://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

editorialbot added Makefile Python review TeX Track: 2 (BCM) Biomedical Engineering, Biosciences, Chemistry, and Materials labels Mar 17, 2023

editorialbot assigned AJQuinn Mar 17, 2023

editorialbot mentioned this issue Mar 17, 2023

[PRE REVIEW]: spiketools: a Python package for analyzing single-unit neural activity #5189

Closed

This was referenced Apr 2, 2023

Suggested improvements / typo fixes in tutorials spiketools/spiketools#159

Closed

Documentation search bar doesn't work spiketools/spiketools#160

Closed

This was referenced May 20, 2023

suggestion: give users more guidance on installing optional dependencies spiketools/spiketools#173

Closed

idea: add Binder support to help users kick the tires spiketools/spiketools#174

Closed

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Nov 8, 2023

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Nov 14, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman closed this as completed Nov 21, 2023

editorialbot mentioned this issue Jul 3, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: BlueCelluLab: Biologically Detailed Neural Network Experimentation API #6956

Closed

[REVIEW]: spiketools: a Python package for analyzing single-unit neural activity #5268

[REVIEW]: spiketools: a Python package for analyzing single-unit neural activity #5268

Comments

editorialbot commented Mar 17, 2023 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Mar 17, 2023

editorialbot commented Mar 17, 2023

editorialbot commented Mar 17, 2023

editorialbot commented Mar 17, 2023

editorialbot commented Mar 17, 2023

AJQuinn commented Mar 17, 2023

AJQuinn commented Mar 27, 2023

djsaunde commented Mar 27, 2023 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @djsaunde

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

rly commented Apr 1, 2023 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @rly

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

AJQuinn commented Apr 17, 2023

AJQuinn commented May 11, 2023

djsaunde commented May 11, 2023 • edited Loading

TomDonoghue commented May 11, 2023 • edited Loading

djsaunde commented May 11, 2023

rly commented May 11, 2023

AJQuinn commented May 12, 2023

TomDonoghue commented May 19, 2023

neuromusic commented May 19, 2023

neuromusic commented May 20, 2023 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @neuromusic

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

AJQuinn commented Nov 7, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 7, 2023

AJQuinn commented Nov 7, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 7, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 7, 2023

AJQuinn commented Nov 7, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 7, 2023

AJQuinn commented Nov 8, 2023

AJQuinn commented Nov 8, 2023

AJQuinn commented Nov 8, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 8, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 8, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 8, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Nov 9, 2023 • edited Loading

TomDonoghue commented Nov 9, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Nov 14, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 14, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Nov 14, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Nov 14, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 14, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 14, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 14, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 14, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Nov 21, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 21, 2023

editorialbot commented Mar 17, 2023 •

edited

Loading

djsaunde commented Mar 27, 2023 •

edited

Loading

rly commented Apr 1, 2023 •

edited

Loading

djsaunde commented May 11, 2023 •

edited

Loading

TomDonoghue commented May 11, 2023 •

edited

Loading

neuromusic commented May 20, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Nov 9, 2023 •

edited

Loading