JOSS review - examples about bidsme HOT 8 CLOSED

@emdupre I believe examples have been adequately provided, in the tutorials as well as the test suite the author has now set up. As for tutorials being included in the actual repository or elsewhere, I guess ultimately it's up to editorial discretion — I'd just mention that there is such a thing as bundling too many things together, and perhaps users of the package don't want to download the tutorial source alongside with the code.

from bidsme.

Hi @emdupre and @PeerHerholz,

Thank you for your constructive feedback!

FYI @nbeliy is currently enjoying a well deserved holiday break, so we'll come back to you in a couple of weeks only. 😃

from bidsme.

Thanks for confirming, @TheChymera !

Yes, I don't mean to suggest that everything associated with BIDSme should be in one place ; we do expect, though that there is sufficient documentation inside the repository under review ! If there is other content already in the repository that meets that the JOSS example usage criteria (noted above) this would also be fine. It seems that @PeerHerholz was not originally able to find it, though this might have changed as the test suite was added. I'll let you (@TheChymera and @PeerHerholz) confirm.

from bidsme.

Hi folks,

thanks for following up on this. My comment was more related to the structure and outline of the examples.
I think with the recent changes and current state here potential users can find and navigate examples/tutorials sufficiently. Thus, if everyone is ok with the current state, I'm too.

from bidsme.

The example is the tutorial. I have plans to make more direct example, but it may take time...

from bidsme.

Hi @nbeliy,

thanks for the update. Just confirming with @emdupre if this works re the JOSS requirements?

from bidsme.

Hi @nbeliy and @PeerHerholz, and thanks for starting this conversation !

For the JOSS review process, we require:

Example usage
The authors should include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).

as noted here. The tutorial content appears to meet this requirement, though I would like to hear @PeerHerholz and @TheChymera 's opinions.

I notice, though, that the tutorial is only included in another repository (i.e., bidsme_tutorial). Since bidsme rather than bidsme_tutorial has been submitted for review, I would expect that the tutorial would be included in this code base. Could you please correct this @nbeliy, such that only code in the current repository is under review ?

from bidsme.