[REVIEW]: Systems Neuro Browser (SNUB) #6187

editorialbot · 2024-01-08T04:54:47Z

Submitting author: @calebweinreb (Caleb Weinreb)
Repository: https://github.com/calebweinreb/SNUB
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 0.1.0
Editor: @emdupre
Reviewers: @niksirbi, @vigji, @lucasmiranda42
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10825136

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/928e9ddfa36d45872e03fbdaf3d66f9c"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/928e9ddfa36d45872e03fbdaf3d66f9c/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/928e9ddfa36d45872e03fbdaf3d66f9c/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/928e9ddfa36d45872e03fbdaf3d66f9c)

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

@niksirbi & @vigji & @lucasmiranda42, 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 @emdupre 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 @niksirbi

📝 Checklist for @lucasmiranda42

📝 Checklist for @vigji

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

editorialbot · 2024-01-08T04:54:50Z

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 · 2024-01-08T04:54:52Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.07 s (629.8 files/s, 91929.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          29            809            888           3559
reStructuredText                 4            158            163            121
TeX                              1              8              0             85
Markdown                         2             29              0             64
YAML                             2              4             10             27
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
CSS                              1              1              0              4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            41           1021           1069           3895
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot · 2024-01-08T04:54:53Z

Wordcount for paper.md is 561

editorialbot · 2024-01-08T04:55:01Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.6795163 is OK
- 10.7554/eLife.63720 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1802.03426 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-01-08T04:55:55Z

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

emdupre · 2024-01-08T04:59:58Z

👋 Hi @niksirbi, @vigji, @lucasmiranda42, and thank you again for agreeing to review this submission for SNUB!

The review will take place in this issue, and you can generate your individual reviewer checklists by asking editorialbot directly with @editorialbot generate my checklist.

In working through the checklist, you're likely to have specific feedback on SNUB. Whenever possible, please open relevant issues on the linked software repository (and cross-link them with this issue) rather than discussing them here. This helps to make sure that feedback is translated into actionable items to improve the software !

If you aren't sure how to get started, please see the Reviewing for JOSS guide -- and, of course, feel free to ping me with any questions !

lucasmiranda42 · 2024-01-08T14:11:44Z

Review checklist for @lucasmiranda42

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/calebweinreb/SNUB?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@calebweninreb) 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?

niksirbi · 2024-01-09T17:58:31Z

Review checklist for @niksirbi

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/calebweinreb/SNUB?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@calebweninreb) 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?

emdupre · 2024-01-19T23:50:12Z

👋 Hi @vigji, I noticed that you hadn't yet created your reviewer checklist, so I wanted to make sure you hadn't hit any issues in doing so. If there's anything I can clarify, please let me know !

I also wanted to cross-link the issues you've already opened on SNUB (thank you !) :

If—when you create the checklist—you want to directly link them with individual review points, that would help to structure the review ! But this isn't strictly necessary, as I can handle that post-hoc.

vigji · 2024-01-20T06:50:07Z

Review checklist for @vigji

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/calebweinreb/SNUB?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@calebweninreb) 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. (see [Minor] DOI for datasets calebweinreb/SNUB#10)
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). (see [Major] No support for standard neurodata formats calebweinreb/SNUB#9)
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? see [Major] package deployment via pip calebweinreb/SNUB#13
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?

calebweinreb · 2024-01-29T00:52:05Z

@emdupre I believe I have now responded to all the github issues raised by the reviewers. There are a number of checklist items where one or more reviewer left the item unchecked but did not raise a corresponding issue. Is there a process for seeking additional feedback on these points and/or offering a rebuttal? Thanks!

niksirbi · 2024-01-29T16:00:22Z

Hi @calebweinreb, I saw you've been busy addressing many of the issues @vigji raised, which is great!

On my side, I still need some time to finalise my review. I expect to raise some more issues today and tomorrow, sorry for the delay.

vigji · 2024-01-29T21:26:06Z

Hi @calebweinreb, I believe you addressed all the issues I had - I will revise everything and close issues while I go through it - hopefully by this week!

emdupre · 2024-01-30T19:17:41Z

👋 Hi @calebweinreb, thanks for checking in on this !

I believe I have now responded to all the github issues raised by the reviewers. There are a number of checklist items where one or more reviewer left the item unchecked but did not raise a corresponding issue. Is there a process for seeking additional feedback on these points and/or offering a rebuttal? Thanks!

Apologies if this was unclear : we had extended a month review window for this work, so we're still within that initial review period. It's great, though, that you're addressing issues as they're raised ! This helps to make the whole process faster, and I certainly appreciate seeing the progress there.

@niksirbi @vigji and @lucasmiranda42, thank you again for your input to date on SNUB ! Please do let us know once you've finished your initial review, so we can make sure that your comments are fully considered.

And of course, please don't hesitate to ping in this issue if you have any other questions !

calebweinreb · 2024-01-30T21:12:44Z

Thank you everyone for the updates!

niksirbi · 2024-01-31T11:59:55Z

Overall I think SNUB is a great tool. Something like it is needed in systems neuroscience, as more and more researchers acquire multiple synchronized data streams from the same animal.

SNUB's primary purpose - as stated - is data exploration and visualisation and it achieves this goal very well. I was able to install SNUB and reproduce the tutorials using the provided sample data. I found the GUI to be performant and responsive, at least on my M2 Macbook.

I think SNUB has the potential for wider adoption especially if the installation issues are addressed and if the data loading is made smoother (see individual issues below).

In the following list I've included both issues raised by me and issues raised by other reviewers that I agree with. I consider the ones marked as [Major] to be blockers for the JOSS reviewer checklist. The others are not critical, and some are purely suggestions/ideas for the author's (optional) consideration.

@calebweinreb has already made inroads on addressing the major issues, so I'm confident that they will be solved. I'll happily recommend SNUB for publication in JOSS once the major issues are closed.

Installation

Hiccups during installation can discourage new users and it's a shame if they miss out on SNUB because of them. The major issues should be resolved, or at least, the supported OS platforms (and versions thereof) should be indicated. @calebweinreb has already started working on making installation easier, e.g. by publishing the package on PyPI.

Data loading

I think that making data loading as seamless as possible for the users will be critical for the project's long-term success. @calebweinreb has already made a big improvement by adding support for converting NWB files, as @vigji suggested.

Maintainability and community

@calebweinreb seems to be the only active developer on the project. It would be useful to clarify to what extent contributions from others are welcome and what is the recommended process. If others start contributing to SNUB, issues like testing and linting will become increasingly important. Some tests have been already introduced, which is great 🎉 !

Although I haven't opened an issue about Continuous Integration, I would highly recommend adopting some sort of CI framework (e.g. GitHub actions) for automating tests on multiple OS platforms, which would also help catch the aforementioned installation problems.

Miscellaneous

Thanks @emdupre for tagging me as a reviewer! It's a pleasure to review for JOSS.

emdupre · 2024-02-07T21:30:02Z

Thank you very much for your write-up, @niksirbi ! I appreciate this summary 🙏

@vigji and @lucasmiranda42, please let us know when you've finalized your reviews -- or if there are any blockers that we should be aware of ! And thank you again for your work on reviewing SNUB to date 🌻

emdupre · 2024-02-12T19:58:24Z

👋 Hi everyone, happy Monday !

Just checking in on the status of this, @vigji and @lucasmiranda42. Please let me know if you have any current blockers (other than time !), or if there's anything I can do to help in this process. Thank you !

vigji · 2024-02-16T17:15:45Z

Hi @emdupre !

I have updated the status of my checklist based on the current state of the package.

Overall, I agree with @niksirbi on SNUB being a useful resource (it was actually already in use in my lab before the submission, so I am sure about the potential!). I am not aware of other tools that it compares to, and I believe that it fills a gap in providing seamless visualizations for multi-modality time series data.

I think that the scope and statement of need for the package are described with enough details in the paper. It is missing a session on comparison with other tools, but I am not aware of any so I do not have issues with that.

I do think that @calebweinreb implemented most of the changes that I was considering major for publication. There is now a version of testing that can be used for a cursory check on functionality by contributors, and nice use cases for DANDI datasets that will definitively highlight how flexibly the package could be used to explore the user' own data or even existing open access datasets.

There are still some minor changes and further improvements that can be done on the data input ( #calebweinreb/SNUB#12) and interface's side (#22), but I do not consider those blocking issues.

Blocking issues:

I agree with @niksirbi on the need for a clearer statement for contributors (#[MAJOR] Missing contributing guide calebweinreb/SNUB#20). To which degree are contributions welcome? Is there something like a roadmap for future development? I think there should be a clearer specification for this as per JOSS checklist.
Finally, also per JOSS guidelines the provenance of the example data should be addressed (#[Major] Clarify provenance of sample datasets calebweinreb/SNUB#21).

Once those are addressed, this is good for publication on my side!

emdupre · 2024-02-16T19:21:26Z

Thank you, @vigji !

I assume you meant to link to calebweinreb/SNUB#20 and calebweinreb/SNUB#21, rather than the listed JOSS issues 😸

I will continue to track those and am looking forward to updates. Thank you again both for this summary and for your expertise in reviewing SNUB !

lucasmiranda42 · 2024-02-17T16:07:44Z

Hi, @emdupre, hi all! I should be able to update my review and raise some issues during the weekend.

Best!
Lucas

emdupre · 2024-02-19T21:13:32Z

Thank you for the update, @lucasmiranda42 ! I'll put in an EditorialBot reminder for later this week to make sure all relevant issues are cross-linked.

Thank you again for agreeing to review SNUB !

emdupre · 2024-02-19T21:14:36Z

@editorialbot remind @lucasmiranda42 in three days

editorialbot · 2024-02-19T21:14:37Z

Reminder set for @lucasmiranda42 in three days

calebweinreb · 2024-03-22T18:28:35Z

I updated the version number and license and the DOI appears not to have changed.

(link for convenience: https://zenodo.org/records/10825136)

emdupre · 2024-03-22T22:40:47Z

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.10825136 as archive

editorialbot · 2024-03-22T22:40:49Z

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.10825136

emdupre · 2024-03-22T22:41:09Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-03-22T22:42:13Z

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

emdupre · 2024-03-22T22:56:53Z

@editorialbot set 0.1.0 as version

editorialbot · 2024-03-22T22:56:55Z

Done! version is now 0.1.0

emdupre · 2024-03-22T22:58:29Z

Thank you, @calebweinreb ! I'm now happy to recommend SNUB to the EiC team for publication in JOSS ✨🚀

Thank you, too, to @vigji, @niksirbi, and @lucasmiranda42 for your reviews ! JOSS works because of your work 💐

emdupre · 2024-03-22T22:58:40Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-03-22T22:58:41Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-03-22T22:58:59Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.6795163 is OK
- 10.7554/eLife.63720 is OK
- 10.1101/2023.07.25.550571 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00861 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3925903 is OK
- 10.7554/eLife.78362 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10578025 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: VidIO: Simple, performant video reading and writin...

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-03-22T22:59:52Z

👋 @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#5166, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

calebweinreb · 2024-03-23T13:22:33Z

Great! Thanks for all your help!

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-03-24T15:41:46Z

@calebweinreb as AEiC for JOSS I will now help to process this submission for acceptance in JOSS. I have checked this review, your repository, the archive link, and the paper. Everything seems in order, there is only the following minor point that requires your attention:

The affiliation says Harvard University, Boston, whereas I think this is usually Harvard University, Cambridge. We leave the affiliation up to you, just checking to make sure this is not an error.

@vigji and @lucasmiranda42, some of boxes remain unticked. If you feel these should be ticked please do so.

Relating to the unticked boxes, from inspecting this review and the repository/paper I can see that:

The project has contributing guidelines
Features sufficient testing
The work complies with our Human and animal research policies (the paper reports on ethical approval for animal data/research).
Language/State of the field. The paper appears in order.
The above was also confirmed with @emdupre via Slack, hence we will shortly proceed with acceptance of this submission, once the authors come back on the minor point regarding the affiliation.

calebweinreb · 2024-03-24T16:02:58Z

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman thanks for pointing that out! I updated the affiliation to "Harvard Medical School"

vigji · 2024-03-24T17:35:25Z

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman all ticked now!

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-03-24T17:45:44Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-03-24T17:46:46Z

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

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-03-24T18:28:48Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2024-03-24T18:28:50Z

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

editorialbot · 2024-03-24T18:35:25Z

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: Weinreb
  given-names: Caleb
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6100-6084"
- family-names: Osman
  given-names: Mohammed Abdal Monium
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8606-6518"
- family-names: Jay
  given-names: Maya
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5537-6476"
- family-names: Datta
  given-names: Sandeep Robert
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8068-3862"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10825136
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Weinreb
    given-names: Caleb
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6100-6084"
  - family-names: Osman
    given-names: Mohammed Abdal Monium
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8606-6518"
  - family-names: Jay
    given-names: Maya
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5537-6476"
  - family-names: Datta
    given-names: Sandeep Robert
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8068-3862"
  date-published: 2024-03-24
  doi: 10.21105/joss.06187
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 95
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 6187
  title: Systems Neuro Browser (SNUB)
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06187"
  volume: 9
title: Systems Neuro Browser (SNUB)

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 · 2024-03-24T18:35:29Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2024-03-24T18:35:29Z

🚨🚨🚨 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.06187 joss-papers#5168
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06187
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 · 2024-03-24T20:58:29Z

@calebweinreb congratulations on this JOSS publication!

@emdupre thanks for editing!

And a special thanks to the reviewers: @niksirbi, @vigji, @lucasmiranda42 !!!

editorialbot · 2024-03-24T20:58:30Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.06187/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06187)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06187">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06187/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06187/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06187

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

calebweinreb · 2024-03-31T16:33:27Z

Thank you everyone!! This was an awesome review experience.

editorialbot added Python review TeX Track: 2 (BCM) Biomedical Engineering, Biosciences, Chemistry, and Materials labels Jan 8, 2024

editorialbot assigned emdupre Jan 8, 2024

editorialbot mentioned this issue Jan 8, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: Systems Neuro Browser (SNUB) #6114

Closed

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Mar 22, 2024

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Mar 24, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman closed this as completed Mar 24, 2024

[REVIEW]: Systems Neuro Browser (SNUB) #6187

[REVIEW]: Systems Neuro Browser (SNUB) #6187

Comments

editorialbot commented Jan 8, 2024 • edited by Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Jan 8, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 8, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 8, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 8, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 8, 2024

emdupre commented Jan 8, 2024

lucasmiranda42 commented Jan 8, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @lucasmiranda42

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

niksirbi commented Jan 9, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @niksirbi

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

emdupre commented Jan 19, 2024

vigji commented Jan 20, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @vigji

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

calebweinreb commented Jan 29, 2024

niksirbi commented Jan 29, 2024

vigji commented Jan 29, 2024

emdupre commented Jan 30, 2024

calebweinreb commented Jan 30, 2024

niksirbi commented Jan 31, 2024

Installation

Data loading

Maintainability and community

Miscellaneous

emdupre commented Feb 7, 2024

emdupre commented Feb 12, 2024

vigji commented Feb 16, 2024 • edited Loading

emdupre commented Feb 16, 2024

lucasmiranda42 commented Feb 17, 2024

emdupre commented Feb 19, 2024

emdupre commented Feb 19, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 19, 2024

calebweinreb commented Mar 22, 2024

emdupre commented Mar 22, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 22, 2024

emdupre commented Mar 22, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 22, 2024

emdupre commented Mar 22, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 22, 2024

emdupre commented Mar 22, 2024

emdupre commented Mar 22, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 22, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 22, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 22, 2024

calebweinreb commented Mar 23, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Mar 24, 2024 • edited Loading

calebweinreb commented Mar 24, 2024

vigji commented Mar 24, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Mar 24, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 24, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Mar 24, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 24, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 24, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 24, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 24, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Mar 24, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 8, 2024 •

edited by Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

Loading

lucasmiranda42 commented Jan 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

niksirbi commented Jan 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

vigji commented Jan 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

vigji commented Feb 16, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Mar 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading