[REVIEW]: Sports2D: Compute 2D joint and segment angles from your smartphone #6849

editorialbot · 2024-06-05T18:59:52Z

Submitting author: @davidpagnon (David Pagnon)
Repository: https://github.com/davidpagnon/Sports2D
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.4.6
Editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Reviewers: @tuliofalmeida, @nicos1993
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7903962

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1d525bbb2695c88c6ebbf2297bd35897"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1d525bbb2695c88c6ebbf2297bd35897/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1d525bbb2695c88c6ebbf2297bd35897/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1d525bbb2695c88c6ebbf2297bd35897)

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

@tuliofalmeida & @nicos1993 & @johnjdavisiv, 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 @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman 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 @nicos1993

📝 Checklist for @johnjdavisiv

📝 Checklist for @tuliofalmeida

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

editorialbot · 2024-06-05T18:59:55Z

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 · 2024-06-05T19:00:21Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.48550/arXiv.2006.10204 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4842-4470-8 is OK
- 10.1038/s41746-023-00775-1 is OK
- 10.7326/0003-4819-157-1-201207030-00450 is OK
- 10.1109/TPAMI.2019.2929257 is OK
- 10.2307/2683591 is OK
- 10.1186/s40798-018-0139-y is OK
- 10.1007/s00167-021-06709-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-020-17807-z is OK
- 10.1038/s41593-018-0209-y is OK
- 10.2139/ssrn.3413035 is OK
- 10.1080/24748668.2008.11868456 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04362 is OK
- 10.1080/00140139.2015.1057238 is OK
- 10.1101/2022.07.07.499061 is OK
- 10.2307/41410412 is OK
- 10.7717/peerj.12995 is OK
- 10.1152/japplphysiol.00772.2007 is OK
- 10.1145/3603618 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: The OpenCV Library
- No DOI given, and none found for title: On the theory of filter amplifiers
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Kinovea - A microscope for your videos
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A 3D markerless protocol with action cameras – Key...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Gait analysis: an introduction

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-06-05T19:00:22Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.04 s (572.0 files/s, 243661.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XML                              1              0            931           1911
Python                          11            424            690           1380
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0           2816            298
Markdown                         2            112              0            245
TeX                              1             23              0            241
TOML                             3             38             39             96
YAML                             3             17             14             96
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            22            614           4490           4267
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   114	David PAGNON
    79	davidpagnon

editorialbot · 2024-06-05T19:00:28Z

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1281

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot · 2024-06-05T19:00:30Z

License info:

✅ License found: BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

editorialbot · 2024-06-05T19:01:22Z

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

johnjdavisiv · 2024-06-05T20:02:28Z

Review checklist for @johnjdavisiv

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/davidpagnon/Sports2D?
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 (@davidpagnon) 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?

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-06-05T20:49:57Z

@tuliofalmeida, @nicos1993, @johnjdavisiv This is where the review takes place. To get started, like @johnjdavisiv did just now, you can call @editorialbot generate my checklist. Thanks again for your help!!! Let me know if you have any questions.

nicos1993 · 2024-06-05T22:01:19Z

Review checklist for @nicos1993

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/davidpagnon/Sports2D?
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 (@davidpagnon) 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?

tuliofalmeida · 2024-06-19T13:54:34Z

Review checklist for @tuliofalmeida

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/davidpagnon/Sports2D?
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 (@davidpagnon) 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?

nicos1993 · 2024-07-15T16:49:26Z

Apologies for the delay in this review. I will complete by the end of this week if that is okay?

Nicos

davidpagnon · 2024-07-15T19:05:44Z

Hi, thank you Nicos and the other reviewers.

To @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman: @hunminkim98 and I are currently working to make it run in real time, I wonder if it's worth completing the review with the library the way it is, or if it's better to wait?

Note that it could be a couple months because it's not the hottest priority right now.

sports2d_demo2.mp4

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-07-16T16:38:24Z

@davidpagnon I suggest we continue with the current state of things as submitted. If you've implemented the features before this review is over we can revisit this. In any case I recommend you implement it with a clear example for instance, so that testing this new functionality is quick and simple, and would not take a lot of additional time.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-07-16T16:39:00Z

@tuliofalmeida, @nicos1993, @johnjdavisiv thanks again for your help with this review. Would you be able to provide a quick update on where things stand? Are there some key points the authors should work on? Thanks!

tuliofalmeida · 2024-07-22T09:14:31Z

Hey @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman I'm planning to finish this week!

nicos1993 · 2024-07-22T21:48:22Z

Hello @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman,

I have tested the software using installation option 2 and followed the example, I can confirm the instructions are very clear and the demonstration ran smoothly with no issues. I believe this software will be very useful for coaches or practitioners wishing to perform a 2D automated kinematic analysis.

I do have a couple of suggestions that the author may wish to consider.

The demo video in the online repository and Figure 1 in the accompanying paper. Whilst the author acknowledges the limitation of using the software to analyze non-sagittal/frontal videos, the demo video/figure is very much non-planar and I would recommend using a demo video/figure which is specifically from either the sagittal plane or the frontal plane. In the software examples perhaps it would be nice to have both examples.
Segment and joint angle conventions. The author provides a citation for the convention of the angles used, but I would recommend using a more common and intuitive convention (e.g., from Winter 2009, Biomechanics and motor control of human movement). I believe this would also be more beneficial to coaches/practitioners. Lastly, in the figure I would consider including the definitions of the segment angles together with the joint angles.

Best wishes,

Nicos Haralabidis

davidpagnon · 2024-07-23T15:24:23Z

Hi Nicos,

Thank you for your review!

I fully agree with your statement that the Demo video was probably not the best, given that it does not lie in the plane. I will replace it with a video of someone doing jumping jacks (frontal plane) and another person doing tuck jumps (sagittal plane).
I believe the joint angle convention is the same as the one from Winter 2009, but I agree that the way it is represented makes it confusing. I will add this figure to the article and the tutorial.

I will ping you once the fixes have been made.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-08-06T10:04:10Z

@nicos1993 thanks for your review and comments. Could you respond to the authors reply ☝️ ? Let me know if you are now happy (some of your boxes are not ticked) with this submission or if there are any other points that the authors should work on. Thanks!

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-08-06T10:05:23Z

@johnjdavisiv thanks for your help with this review. Would you be able to finalise your review shortly? We do have two nearly completed reviews, but if you are able to complete yours that would be great. Thanks!

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-08-06T10:06:21Z

@tuliofalmeida it looks like you've ticked all boxes. Are you happy to recommend acceptance of this work for JOSS? Thanks for your help!

johnjdavisiv · 2024-08-07T23:38:44Z

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Will be a bit of a stretch to finish it this week, but I can get it done by the end of next!

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-08-19T10:57:39Z

@johnjdavisiv thanks. Let me know if you have any questions or if you are good to proceed.

davidpagnon · 2024-09-23T14:23:06Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-09-23T14:24:20Z

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

davidpagnon · 2024-09-23T14:24:29Z

@editorialbot set 0.4.6 as version

editorialbot · 2024-09-23T14:24:32Z

I'm sorry @davidpagnon, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-09-24T07:24:16Z

@editorialbot set v0.4.6 as version

editorialbot · 2024-09-24T07:24:18Z

Done! version is now v0.4.6

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-09-24T07:24:40Z

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7903962 as archive

editorialbot · 2024-09-24T07:24:42Z

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7903962

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-09-24T07:28:56Z

@davidpagnon can you update the archive listed license to match your project license?

Currently it lists this default:

davidpagnon · 2024-09-24T08:17:07Z

Oh sorry yes, I missed it! Done now.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-09-24T09:01:52Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-09-24T09:01:55Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-09-24T09:02:24Z

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.48550/arXiv.2006.10204 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4842-4470-8 is OK
- 10.1038/s41746-023-00775-1 is OK
- 10.7326/0003-4819-157-1-201207030-00450 is OK
- 10.1109/TPAMI.2019.2929257 is OK
- 10.2307/2683591 is OK
- 10.1186/s40798-018-0139-y is OK
- 10.1109/TBME.2007.901024 is OK
- 10.1007/s00167-021-06709-2 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2303.07399 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-020-17807-z is OK
- 10.1038/s41593-018-0209-y is OK
- 10.2139/ssrn.3413035 is OK
- 10.1080/24748668.2008.11868456 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04362 is OK
- 10.1080/00140139.2015.1057238 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006223 is OK
- 10.1101/2022.07.07.499061 is OK
- 10.2307/41410412 is OK
- 10.7717/peerj.12995 is OK
- 10.1145/3603618 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: The OpenCV Library
- No DOI given, and none found for title: On the theory of filter amplifiers
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Kinovea - A microscope for your videos
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A 3D markerless protocol with action cameras – Key...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Gait analysis: an introduction
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Biomechanics and motor control of human movement

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-09-24T09:03:34Z

👋 @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#5905, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

davidpagnon · 2024-09-24T12:50:09Z

I noticed a typo (two stars ** that had to be removed) and slightly rephrased something in the last paragraph of the statement of need. It probably does not matter if this is too late.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-09-24T13:01:02Z

@davidpagnon not too late :) I still have a couple of checks to do as well. The paper will be updated still so.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-09-24T13:04:44Z

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-09-24T13:05:03Z

@davidpagnon I will now proceed to accept this since all checks are done

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-09-24T13:05:15Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2024-09-24T13:05:18Z

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

editorialbot · 2024-09-24T13:12:14Z

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: Pagnon
  given-names: David
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6891-8331"
- family-names: Kim
  given-names: HunMin
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0007-7710-8051"
contact:
- family-names: Pagnon
  given-names: David
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6891-8331"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7903962
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Pagnon
    given-names: David
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6891-8331"
  - family-names: Kim
    given-names: HunMin
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0007-7710-8051"
  date-published: 2024-09-24
  doi: 10.21105/joss.06849
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 101
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 6849
  title: "Sports2D: Compute 2D human pose and angles from a video or a
    webcam"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06849"
  volume: 9
title: "Sports2D: Compute 2D human pose and angles from a video or a
  webcam"

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 · 2024-09-24T13:12:18Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2024-09-24T13:12:18Z

🚨🚨🚨 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.06849 joss-papers#5906
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06849
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

davidpagnon · 2024-09-24T13:52:00Z

Thank you everyone, reviewers and editor for your contribution to this paper!

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-09-26T11:23:59Z

@davidpagnon congratulations on this JOSS publication.

I'd like to say thanks to reviewers: @tuliofalmeida, @nicos1993 !!!!

editorialbot · 2024-09-26T11:24:01Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.06849/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06849)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06849">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06849/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06849/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06849

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 Jupyter Notebook Python review TeX Track: 2 (BCM) Biomedical Engineering, Biosciences, Chemistry, and Materials labels Jun 5, 2024

editorialbot assigned Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Jun 5, 2024

editorialbot mentioned this issue Jun 5, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: Sports2D: Compute 2D joint and segment angles from your smartphone #6375

Closed

tuliofalmeida mentioned this issue Jul 3, 2024

Review Joss - Tulio davidpagnon/Sports2D#9

Open

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Sep 24, 2024

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

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman closed this as completed Sep 26, 2024

[REVIEW]: Sports2D: Compute 2D joint and segment angles from your smartphone #6849

[REVIEW]: Sports2D: Compute 2D joint and segment angles from your smartphone #6849

Comments

editorialbot commented Jun 5, 2024 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Jun 5, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 5, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 5, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 5, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 5, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 5, 2024

johnjdavisiv commented Jun 5, 2024 • edited by editorialbot Loading

Review checklist for @johnjdavisiv

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Jun 5, 2024

nicos1993 commented Jun 5, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @nicos1993

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

tuliofalmeida commented Jun 19, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @tuliofalmeida

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

nicos1993 commented Jul 15, 2024

davidpagnon commented Jul 15, 2024 • edited Loading

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Jul 16, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Jul 16, 2024

tuliofalmeida commented Jul 22, 2024

nicos1993 commented Jul 22, 2024

davidpagnon commented Jul 23, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Aug 6, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Aug 6, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Aug 6, 2024

johnjdavisiv commented Aug 7, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Aug 19, 2024

davidpagnon commented Sep 23, 2024

editorialbot commented Sep 23, 2024

davidpagnon commented Sep 23, 2024

editorialbot commented Sep 23, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Sep 24, 2024

editorialbot commented Sep 24, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Sep 24, 2024

editorialbot commented Sep 24, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Sep 24, 2024

davidpagnon commented Sep 24, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Sep 24, 2024

editorialbot commented Sep 24, 2024

editorialbot commented Sep 24, 2024

editorialbot commented Sep 24, 2024

davidpagnon commented Sep 24, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Sep 24, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Sep 24, 2024

Checks on repository

Checks on review issue

Checks on archive

Checks on paper

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Sep 24, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Sep 24, 2024

editorialbot commented Sep 24, 2024

editorialbot commented Sep 24, 2024

editorialbot commented Sep 24, 2024

editorialbot commented Sep 24, 2024

davidpagnon commented Sep 24, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Sep 26, 2024

editorialbot commented Sep 26, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 5, 2024 •

edited

Loading

johnjdavisiv commented Jun 5, 2024 •

edited by editorialbot

Loading

nicos1993 commented Jun 5, 2024 •

edited

Loading

tuliofalmeida commented Jun 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

davidpagnon commented Jul 15, 2024 •

edited

Loading