openjournals
[REVIEW]: Elephas: Distributed Deep Learning with Keras & Spark
Submitting author: @maxpumperla (Max Pumperla) Repository: https://github.com/maxpumperla/elephas Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: 3.0.0 Editor: @diehlpk Reviewers: @marksantcroos Archive: Pending
:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:
Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.
Status
Status badge code:
HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/328ce9586713a195b27a55658885cd5b"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/328ce9586713a195b27a55658885cd5b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/328ce9586713a195b27a55658885cd5b)
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
@marksantcroos & @burch-cm, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:
- Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
- Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @taless474 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 ✨
Review checklist for @marksantcroos
✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨
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 repository url?
- [ ] 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 (@maxpumperla) 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
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 and who the target audience is?
- [ ] 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?
Review checklist for @burch-cm
✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨
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 repository url?
- [ ] 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 (@maxpumperla) 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
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 and who the target audience is?
- [ ] 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?
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @marksantcroos, @burch-cm it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper :tada:.
:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:
Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.
:star: Important :star:
If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿
To fix this do the following two things:
- Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:
- You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications
For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
@whedon commands
For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
@whedon generate pdf
PDF failed to compile for issue #4073 with the following error:
Can't find any papers to compile :-(
Software report (experimental):
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.07 s (1015.4 files/s, 73307.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 47 722 421 2591
Markdown 12 89 0 254
Jupyter Notebook 1 0 495 88
YAML 3 4 1 70
Dockerfile 1 14 4 55
INI 1 3 0 7
Bourne Shell 1 3 3 4
Groovy 1 2 5 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 67 837 929 3071
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistical information for the repository '4edeb354999f132b47760c26' was
gathered on 2022/01/18.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:
Author Commits Insertions Deletions % of changes
10056727 1 1 1 0.01
A-Fayez92 1 1 1 0.01
Alberto Fumagalli 1 1 1 0.01
Ana Maria Martinez F 4 6 9 0.10
Gaurav Yeole 1 1 1 0.01
Ivan Montero 1 2 0 0.01
JONATHAN-DS\Jonathan 2 22 32 0.36
Jose Alvarez 2 3 2 0.03
Liang-Chi Hsieh 1 4 4 0.05
Max 2 2 0 0.01
Max Pumperla 187 6976 3035 67.14
Oscar Pan 21 193 92 1.91
Samangooei 5 82 45 0.85
Willem Meints 1 11 2 0.09
Yuan Yifan 1 4 3 0.05
danielenricocahall 101 1855 2424 28.70
ivanmontero 1 4 1 0.03
jordan vega 2 20 2 0.15
spencerimp 1 62 5 0.45
Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:
Author Rows Stability Age % in comments
JONATHAN-DS\Jonathan 5 22.7 42.4 0.00
Jose Alvarez 2 66.7 32.5 0.00
Liang-Chi Hsieh 3 75.0 67.8 33.33
Max Pumperla 2506 35.9 43.9 8.90
Oscar Pan 139 72.0 5.0 4.32
Samangooei 4 4.9 59.9 0.00
Yuan Yifan 2 50.0 12.6 0.00
danielenricocahall 1059 57.1 6.5 5.19
jordan vega 14 70.0 33.2 0.00
:wave: @marksantcroos, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
:wave: @burch-cm, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
@taless474 – if you haven't already, I would recommend emailing the reviewers directly incase they are missing these notifications on GitHub.
Hello, I got the email, and I've been unable to install the software or resolve the dependency issues. While I am still interested in helping with reviews, I don't currently have the technical expertise to troubleshoot the issues with Spark/PySpark/Java and I'm sure this will cause even more delays.
Please remove me as a reviewer at this time. Thank you.
:wave: @taless474 – it looks like this submission could do with new reviewers at this stage. What do you think?
@editorialbot assign @diehlpk as editor
:wave: folks – @diehlpk has kindly volunteered to step in as the handling editor here as @taless474 is not currently available to edit. Thanks Patrick!
I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:
@editorialbot commands
@marksantcroos Are you still available? If I do not hear back from you by October 21th, I will remove you as a reviewer.
@diehlpk @arfon I could go through the list of reviewers yet again, but I don't think I have any relation to anyone on it. Isn't the appointment of reviewers something you (as part of the journal) are better equipped to handle?
Sure, I will have a look. Sometimes it can help if the authors recommend some reviewers.