joss-reviews
joss-reviews copied to clipboard
openjournals
[REVIEW]: osrm: Interface Between R and the OpenStreetMap-Based Routing Service OSRM
Submitting author: @rCarto (Timothée Giraud) Repository: https://github.com/riatelab/osrm/ Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v4.0.0 Editor: @elbeejay Reviewers: @JosiahParry, @mikemahoney218, @wcjochem Archive: Pending
Status
Status badge code:
HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/66682b47d145b791fe2e8aa292b84cc2"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/66682b47d145b791fe2e8aa292b84cc2/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/66682b47d145b791fe2e8aa292b84cc2)
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
@JosiahParry & @mikemahoney218, 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 @elbeejay 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 @mikemahoney218
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
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.02 s (1030.1 files/s, 157397.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R 12 140 413 838
Markdown 3 164 0 667
TeX 1 68 0 315
JSON 1 0 0 207
YAML 2 16 4 60
Rmd 1 42 65 57
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 20 430 482 2144
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1145/2093973.2094062 is OK
- 10.1111/cobi.13326 is OK
- 10.1080/00131881.2017.1339285 is OK
- 10.1080/23754931.2021.1895875 is OK
- 10.1016/j.simpat.2022.102526 is OK
- 10.14295/transportes.v29i2.2385 is OK
- 10.2373/1864-810X.21-04-05 is OK
- 10.1080/23754931.2018.1519458 is OK
- 10.5604/01.3001.0014.5601 is OK
- 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.10.008 is OK
- 10.1108/IJHMA-02-2018-0017 is OK
- 10.3390/ijerph18073813 is OK
- 10.1016/j.trd.2021.102964 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-022-09919-x is OK
- 10.3390/ijgi8090400 is OK
- 10.1007/s41060-022-00328-x is OK
- 10.1016/j.ajo.2020.08.038 is OK
- 10.1177/23998083211040519 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127097 is OK
- 10.32614/RJ-2018-053 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01926 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:
Review checklist for @mikemahoney218
Conflict of interest
- [x] 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
- [x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.
General checks
- [x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/riatelab/osrm/?
- [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
- [x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@rCarto) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
- [x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Functionality
- [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
- [x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
- [x] 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
- [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
- [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
- [x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
- [x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
- [x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
- [x] 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
- [x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
- [x] 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?
- [x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
- [x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
- [x] 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?
@mikemahoney218 and @JosiahParry thanks again for agreeing to review this submission to JOSS. We've just switched over from whedon to the new editorialbot, and the review process has changed subtly. Please refer to the post at the top of this issue page for a link to the reviewer guidelines as well as the command for generating your reviewer checklist (@mikemahoney218 wasted no time in generating this :confetti_ball:!) -- please feel free to reach out to me with any questions you may have. Please open issues related to this JOSS review in the osrm repository itself, and "link" them to this review issue by posting this URL (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/4574) in the text of the issue you open.
Thanks again for reviewing for JOSS, I'm going to tell the editorial bot to send out review reminders in 3 weeks just so we don't collectively let this slip through the cracks.
@wcjochem thanks again for agreeing to review this submission. Please see the above instructions on how to generate your review checklist and let me know if you have any questions about the process. I'll be asking the editorialbot to send you a reminder in 3 weeks as well just so that things stay on track.
Review checklist for @JosiahParry
Conflict of interest
- [x] 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
- [x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.
General checks
- [x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/riatelab/osrm/?
- [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
- [x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@rCarto) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
- [x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Functionality
- [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
- [x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
- [x] 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
- [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
- [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
- [x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
- [x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
- [x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
- [x] 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
- [x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
- [x] 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?
- [x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
- [x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
- [x] 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 @wcjochem
Conflict of interest
- [x] 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
- [x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.
General checks
- [x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/riatelab/osrm/?
- [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
- [x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@rCarto) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
- [x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Functionality
- [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
- [x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
- [x] 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
- [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
- [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
- [x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
- [x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
- [x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
- [x] 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
- [x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
- [x] 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?
- [x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
- [x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
- [x] 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 @wcjochem @JosiahParry @mikemahoney218 ! I just wanted to check-in and make sure the reviews are going okay and that this hasn't fallen off of anyone's radar. Let me know if you have any questions about the process. As a reminder please make review comments as issues in the osrm repository with a link to this review issue so everything stays connected.
Thanks! Jay
:wave: @mikemahoney218, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
:wave: @JosiahParry, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
:wave: @wcjochem, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
:wave: @mikemahoney218, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
This is still on my radar :smile: and I'm still intending to have a review for you on the original six week timeline. I'd expect most of my review to come at the end of that window due to upcoming travel plans.
👋 @wcjochem, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
Hi @elbeejay , yes, I'm still working on this review and will start updating the issues in the repository. Thanks for the reminder!
@JosiahParry pinging you to make sure this review is on your radar! Let me know if you have any questions
@JosiahParry pinging you to make sure this review is on your radar! Let me know if you have any questions
Yup, it is :) thanks!
@JosiahParry, @wcjochem, @mikemahoney218 it is a new week so I'm just checking in here to make sure the reviews are going smoothly. As always, please reach out if you have any questions about the process.
:wave: @JosiahParry, @wcjochem, @mikemahoney218 as we are now in week 5 of the review process, I just wanted to remind all of you that we ask our reviewers to complete their reviews in 6 weeks (September 4 in this case). If you are going to be unable to complete your review of this submission by that date, please notify us in this thread with your estimated date of completion for the benefit of both @rCarto and myself.
Thanks!
Thanks for inviting me to review this package @elbeejay and @rCarto! It's a very cool package and I'm happy to have had a reason to get "under the hood".
I've opened two issues on the osrm repository flagging a few sections of the checklist I don't feel quite ready to check off yet: https://github.com/riatelab/osrm/issues/92 https://github.com/riatelab/osrm/issues/93
Other than those issues, everything looks good on my end. Thanks again for having me review, it's really a cool project :smile:
I have reviewed this package and at this moment am unable to check off the sections Substantial Scholarly Effort, Functionality Documentation, Automated Test, Community Guidelines, and Quality of the writing.
re substantial scholarly effort: https://github.com/riatelab/osrm/issues/102 re functionality documentation: https://github.com/riatelab/osrm/issues/100, https://github.com/riatelab/osrm/issues/97, and https://github.com/riatelab/osrm/issues/96 re automated testing: I agree with @mikemahoney218's statement regarding testing suite in https://github.com/riatelab/osrm/issues/93. re community guidelines: https://github.com/riatelab/osrm/issues/103 re quality of the writing: i also concur with @mikemahoney218 in https://github.com/riatelab/osrm/issues/92, additionally there is at least one typo that I cought https://github.com/riatelab/osrm/issues/101