joss-reviews
joss-reviews copied to clipboard
openjournals
[PRE REVIEW]: TLViz: Visualising and analysing tensor decomposition models with Python
Submitting author: @marieroald (Marie Roald) Repository: https://github.com/tensorly/viz Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper Version: v0.1.1 Editor: @faroit Reviewers: @sara-02 Managing EiC: Arfon Smith
Status
Status badge code:
HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/43044545885a3e47b35c6775530a67c0"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/43044545885a3e47b35c6775530a67c0/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/43044545885a3e47b35c6775530a67c0)
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @marieroald. Currently, there isn't an JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
The author's suggestion for the handling editor is @timtroendle.
@marieroald if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).
Editor instructions
The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:
@editorialbot commands
Hello human, 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
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.10 s (658.9 files/s, 137805.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 36 2010 3528 4474
SVG 3 0 53 2572
TeX 2 33 0 333
reStructuredText 16 132 128 193
YAML 4 15 10 132
Markdown 1 24 0 81
DOS Batch 1 8 1 27
TOML 1 5 0 13
INI 1 1 0 10
make 1 4 6 10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 66 2232 3726 7845
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1007/978-1-84800-046-9_8 is OK
- 10.1137/07070111X is OK
- 10.1016/S0169-7439(97)00032-4 is OK
- 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.02.026 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a is OK
- 10.1016/S0169-7439(00)00071-X is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03021 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.148 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@danielskatz @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman I have some experience with with parafac implementations in Python and could also think of some reviewers but I'm of course also happy @galessiorob can edit this (i could still provide some potential reviewers in that case)
@faroit if you can edit this I'd be glad to assign you. Would you be okay with that? You can also do this yourself by calling @editorialbot assign me as editor. Thanks for your comment here.
👋 Hi @MarieRoald, thanks again for your submission to JOSS. I will be serving as the editor for this now. We'll use this issue to identify reviewers and resolve technical issues.
i won't be able to start the review process before start of next week as I am currently on vacation but I will already contact some scholars that I know have worked closely with parafac and python. @MarieRoald, please feel free to also suggest a couple of reviewers yourself.
For this, please check the JOSS COI policy and only mention them with a space between the @ and their handle (so you would refer to me as "@ faroit").
Hi @faroit, thank you for editing our paper!
I looked through the list of reviewers linked above, and @ jamiehadd could be a good candidate as she seems to be knowledgeable in Python and tensor factorisations for data analysis. @ ahwillia also seems like a good fit since he has experience with PARAFAC for data analysis in Python, but he is high on the list and appears to have an active review already, so he might not have the capacity.
@MarieRoald thanks for your suggestions. I would also like to ask @ aarmey. Do you see a conflict of interest here?
Hi @faroit, neither @yngvem nor I have worked with @ aarmey directly, but all three of us are involved with the TensorLy project. From the COI policy, I am not sure if this is a COI or not?
@MarieRoald to me this looks more like a COI than not... @arfon what do you think? The submission is hosted under parent (tensorly) organization and the potential reviewer (aarmey) is part of the same parent project but hasn't contributed to this project (the submission) nor has a direct working relationship with the submitting authors.
@faroit Update: We have now started discussing the possibility of more collaboration within the TensorLy team. While nothing is set in stone yet, I am now leaning more towards this being a COI.
@MarieRoald Thanks for your transparent replies. I am currently looking for other reviewers and will let you know here
👋 @ahwillia @jamiehadd @neel-dey @danielakuinchtner - would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The JOSS review process takes place on GitHub and focuses on the software and a short paper. We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html
The software under review is Tensorly Viz.
This issue is a "pre-review" issue in which reviewers are assigned. Once sufficient reviewers are recruited we will open a dedicated review issue where the review will take place.
Hi @faroit, thank you for reaching out and my apologies for the delayed response. Unfortunately, I don't have the capacity to properly review this submission at the moment.
Hello @faroit @MarieRoald, this project looks cool. I will be happy to review it. I am available post 20th August to help.
@sara-02: Thank you, that's great! @faroit: I believe we need at least two reviewers? I looked through the list again, and here are some additional candidates I found by broadening my search to people interested in data science/machine learning:
- canerturkmen
- 62442katieb
- jkbren
- TahiriNadia
And here are some more possible candidates (outside the list) familiar with Python and tensor decompositions:
- jvendrow
- IlyaKisil
- aschein
@MarieRoald @sara-02 very sorry for the delay. I am on vacation this week, but I behind the scenes I have tried to contact a countless number of potential reviewers - without much success... I will try from your list as well now.
👋 @62442katieb @IlyaKisil @jkbren @jvendrow - would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The JOSS review process takes place on GitHub and focuses on the software and a short paper. We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html
The software under review is Tensorly Viz.
This issue is a "pre-review" issue in which reviewers are assigned. Once sufficient reviewers are recruited we will open a dedicated review issue where the review will take place.
