[PRE REVIEW]: Aletheia: an open-source toolbox for steganalysis about joss-reviews HOT 69 CLOSED

Thank you for your feedback, @danielskatz. We apologize for the delay in our response, as we have had to make several adjustments based on your observations.

1. The core code of Aletheia is written in Python. However, in the field of steganography, it's common to implement stegosystems in Matlab. That's why Aletheia also contains portions of its code in Octave. At times, this Octave code requires C implementations for optimization. It's crucial, especially for research experiments, to use the original code provided by authors. That's the primary reason for retaining the Octave code. However, we've relocated this code to an external repository, and now Aletheia downloads it only upon user request and confirmation. This process is detailed in the paper.

2. We have expanded the paper and added some illustrative examples to provide a deeper understanding.

3. We believe we have addressed the third point regarding the potentially missing DOIs.

Thank you for your patience, and we hope these changes clarify the concerns you raised. Looking forward to your further insights.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot add @ragibson as reviewer

Thanks again for agreeing to review!

from joss-reviews.

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

from joss-reviews.

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

from joss-reviews.

Couldn't check the bibtex because branch name is incorrect: https://github.com/daniellerch/aletheia/tree/master/paper

from joss-reviews.

Couldn't check the bibtex because branch name is incorrect: https://github.com/daniellerch/aletheia/tree/master/paper

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot set paper as branch

from joss-reviews.

Done! branch is now paper

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot check references

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot check registry

from joss-reviews.

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot check repository

from joss-reviews.

Couldn't check the bibtex because branch name is incorrect: paper

from joss-reviews.

Couldn't check the bibtex because branch name is incorrect: paper

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot set master as branch

from joss-reviews.

Done! branch is now master

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot check repository

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot check references

from joss-reviews.

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

from joss-reviews.

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=1.75 s (77.8 files/s, 12522.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MATLAB                          31            771           2057           4967
Python                          19           1228            423           3538
C++                             57            662            429           2864
Java                             9            272            451           2493
C                                2            109            188            480
Markdown                         8            171              0            403
C/C++ Header                     5             40             18            144
TeX                              1             19              0            136
YAML                             1              1              0             18
make                             3              0              0             16
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           136           3273           3566          15059
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

from joss-reviews.

Wordcount for paper.md is 398

from joss-reviews.

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1186/1687-417x-2014-1 may be a valid DOI for title: Universal distortion function for steganography in an arbitrary domain
- 10.1145/3335203.3335738 may be a valid DOI for title: Detection of Classifier Inconsistencies in Image Steganalysis
- 10.1109/tdsc.2022.3154967 may be a valid DOI for title: Subsequent Embedding in Targeted Image Steganalysis: Theoretical Framework and Practical Applications
- 10.1109/icip.2014.7025854 may be a valid DOI for title: A New Cost Function for Spatial Image Steganography
- 10.1007/3-540-45496-9_2 may be a valid DOI for title: An Implementation of Key-Based Digital Signal Steganography
- 10.1109/wifs49906.2020.9360897 may be a valid DOI for title: ImageNet Pre-trained CNNs for JPEG Steganalysis

INVALID DOIs

- None

from joss-reviews.

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

from joss-reviews.

👋 @daniellerch - Thanks for your submission.

A few things that we should deal with:

1 - I see a lot of code in your repo in various languages. Can you give me a high-level overview of it and why there are so many different languages? Are there multiple APIs from each, for example? This is something I would expect to see in the README and paper as well - something about what is the software, and how is it used (though I guess this is a level below the README in the repo to some extent.) To find an editor and reviewers, we need to know a bit about what they need to know.

2 - Your paper is quite short: ~400 words compared to a JOSS max of 1000, so there is room to add some more info about the software.

3 - You could work on the possibly missing DOIs that editorialbot suggests, but note that some may be incorrect. Please feel free to make changes to your .bib file, then use the command @editorialbot check references to check again, and the command @editorialbot generate pdf when the references are right to make a new PDF. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot commands

from joss-reviews.

Hello @daniellerch, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot check references

from joss-reviews.

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/TIFS.2018.2871749 is OK
- 10.1186/1687-417X-2014-1 is OK
- 10.1145/3335203.3335738 is OK
- 10.1109/tdsc.2022.3154967 is OK
- 10.1109/icip.2014.7025854 is OK
- 10.1007/3-540-45496-9_2 is OK
- 10.1109/WIFS49906.2020.9360897 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- Errored finding suggestions for "A Graph–Theoretic Approach to Steganography", please try later

INVALID DOIs

- None

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot check references

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot check references

from joss-reviews.

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/TIFS.2018.2871749 is OK
- 10.1007/11552055_12 is OK
- 10.1186/1687-417X-2014-1 is OK
- 10.1145/3335203.3335738 is OK
- 10.1109/tdsc.2022.3154967 is OK
- 10.1109/icip.2014.7025854 is OK
- 10.1007/3-540-45496-9_2 is OK
- 10.1109/WIFS49906.2020.9360897 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

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

from joss-reviews.

👋 @daniellerch - Thanks for working on the third issue below. Once you have a response to the other two, please let me know.

A few things that we should deal with:

1 - I see a lot of code in your repo in various languages. Can you give me a high-level overview of it and why there are so many different languages? Are there multiple APIs from each, for example? This is something I would expect to see in the README and paper as well - something about what is the software, and how is it used (though I guess this is a level below the README in the repo to some extent.) To find an editor and reviewers, we need to know a bit about what they need to know.

2 - Your paper is quite short: ~400 words compared to a JOSS max of 1000, so there is room to add some more info about the software.

3 - You could work on the possibly missing DOIs that editorialbot suggests, but note that some may be incorrect. Please feel free to make changes to your .bib file, then use the command @editorialbot check references to check again, and the command @editorialbot generate pdf when the references are right to make a new PDF. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

from joss-reviews.

@daniellerch - If you can't make progress on these in the next 3 weeks, I'll go ahead and mark this submission as withdrawn, though you can make a new submission later

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot remind me in 3 weeks

from joss-reviews.

Reminder set for @danielskatz in 3 weeks

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

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

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot check repository

from joss-reviews.

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.15 s (216.7 files/s, 40642.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          19           1247            413           3574
Markdown                         8            192              0            490
TeX                              1             20              0            160
Bourne Shell                     4             27              1             47
YAML                             1              1              0             18
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            33           1487            414           4289
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

from joss-reviews.

Wordcount for paper.md is 1052

from joss-reviews.

👋 @mstimberg - this might be a little outside of your zone, but I wonder if you feel that you could edit it?

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot invite @mstimberg as editor

from joss-reviews.

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

from joss-reviews.

@mstimberg - just a ping on this invitation...

from joss-reviews.

Hi @danielskatz , sorry for the late reply but I am currently out-of-office and didn't have much Internet access lately. I'd be happy to edit the submission, but I won't be able to work on it before September.

from joss-reviews.

that's fine - it's just 2 weeks away, and probably will be faster than trying to find someone else - thanks!

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot assign @mstimberg as editor

from joss-reviews.

Assigned! @mstimberg is now the editor

from joss-reviews.

👋 @danielskatz, please take a look at the state of the submission (this is an automated reminder).

from joss-reviews.

@daniellerch Thanks for your patience! I am now back from vacation and will start taking this review forward. I have contacted several potential reviewers, hopefully some of them will accept to review 🤞
If you have any suggestions for potential reviewers, then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @) – thanks!

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot add @YassineYousfi as reviewer

Thanks again for agreeing to review!

from joss-reviews.

@YassineYousfi added to the reviewers list!

from joss-reviews.

@daniellerch Unfortunately I am struggling with recruiting reviewers for your submission, please let me know in case you have any suggestions for potential reviewers (without tagging their github handle with an @, to avoid spurious notifications) 🙏

from joss-reviews.

@mstimberg I am pleased to provide a list of researches in the field, whom I believe would provide insightful feedback. I hold no personal or professional affiliations with them, and am unaware of their interest in reviewing the paper:

• Jan Butora
• Eugene Khvedchenya (BloodAxe)
• Guanshuo Xu (GuanshuoXu)
• Mehdi Boroumand
• Marc Chaumont (marcchaumont)

On the other hand, I believe @YassineYousfi would be an excellent choice, and he might also be able to recommend other suitable candidates.

from joss-reviews.

@daniellerch Many thanks for the suggestions, I will have a closer look and contact them over mail. And indeed, if you have any suggestions for reviewers @YassineYousfi, I'd be very grateful.

from joss-reviews.

@mstimberg - how is your search for reviewers coming?

from joss-reviews.

@mstimberg - how is your search for reviewers coming?

Not going well, unfortunately. I've contacted 10 potential reviewers over mail without any reply – I just messaged our internal slack to see whether anyone has additional suggestions.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

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

from joss-reviews.

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

open_iA: A tool for processing and visual analysis of industrial computed tomography datasets
Submitting author: @codeling
Handling editor: @katyhuff (Retired)
Reviewers: @trallard, @behollister
Similarity score: 0.8051

SIAL: A simple image analysis library for wet-lab scientists
Submitting author: @d-tear
Handling editor: @jni (Retired)
Reviewers: @bogovicj, @haesleinhuepf
Similarity score: 0.8032

BIDSonym: a BIDS App for the pseudo-anonymization of neuroimaging datasets
Submitting author: @peerherholz
Handling editor: @oliviaguest (Active)
Reviewers: @deep-introspection, @chrisgorgo, @neuromusic
Similarity score: 0.8012

pystiche: A Framework for Neural Style Transfer
Submitting author: @pmeier
Handling editor: @kthyng (Active)
Reviewers: @kthyng
Similarity score: 0.7986

LAS: an integrated language analysis tool for multiple languages
Submitting author: @jiemakel
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @desilinguist
Similarity score: 0.7978

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot add @ragibson as reviewer

Trying again, @editorialbot was taking a nap, apparently.

from joss-reviews.

@ragibson added to the reviewers list!

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot start review

Here we go 🚀

from joss-reviews.

OK, I've started the review over in #5982.

from joss-reviews.