[PRE REVIEW]: Brightest path tracing: A Python package to trace the brightest path in 2D and 3D images about joss-reviews HOT 38 CLOSED

@cudmore the board has decided this work may be in scope for JOSS. Hence I will proceed to find handling editor. Note though that we have a bit of a backlog and many editors are preoccupied with other submission. Therefore we may need to waitlist this work until an editor becomes available.

from joss-reviews.

@AoifeHughes well that is just fantabulous 🎉

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.

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.05 s (940.6 files/s, 85192.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          29            405            796           1379
Markdown                         7            135              0            276
YAML                             6             18              8            236
TeX                              1             13              0            170
Jupyter Notebook                 3              0            694            124
TOML                             1              0              0              3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            47            571           1498           2188
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

from joss-reviews.

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

OK DOIs

- 10.7717/peerj.453 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.8025955 is OK
- 10.1109/TSSC.1968.300136 is OK
- 10.1007/BF01386390 is OK
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr390 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-021-01105-7 is OK
- 10.1109/ICPR.2000.903713 is OK
- 10.1016/0165-0270(93)90020-R is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

from joss-reviews.

Wordcount for paper.md is 912

from joss-reviews.

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

from joss-reviews.

@cudmore thanks for this submission. I am the AEiC on this track and here to help with the initial steps.
I had a quick look at the paper. For the moment could you please spell out USA as United States of America in your affiliations? Thanks.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot query scope

from joss-reviews.

Submission flagged for editorial review.

from joss-reviews.

@cudmore I have just flagged this submission for a scope review by the editorial board. This is because this submission appears relatively small in terms of lines of code and I could use some help from the board to check if this work conforms to our substantial scholarly effort criteria. This scope review usually takes about 2 weeks to complete.

from joss-reviews.

I'm sorry @cudmore, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot commands

from joss-reviews.

Hello @cudmore, 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 repository

from joss-reviews.

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.04 s (1108.1 files/s, 100363.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          29            405            796           1379
Markdown                         7            135              0            276
YAML                             6             18              8            236
TeX                              1             13              0            170
Jupyter Notebook                 3              0            694            124
TOML                             1              0              0              3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            47            571           1498           2188
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

from joss-reviews.

Wordcount for paper.md is 912

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot invite @AoifeHughes as editor

from joss-reviews.

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

from joss-reviews.

Hi @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman, super happy to edit! This looks interesting!

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot assign @AoifeHughes as editor

from joss-reviews.

Assigned! @AoifeHughes is now the editor

from joss-reviews.

Hi @cudmore, I'm just putting out some requests to reviewers today, please feel free to make some suggestions of potential reviewers from your own knowledge or by using https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org to help us proceed faster

from joss-reviews.

Hi @AoifeHughes and thanks for accepting to lead this review. One person you can reach out to for review might be github username haesleinhuepf

from joss-reviews.

I'm still waiting to hear from a few reviewers I've reached out to. Hopefully will hear soon!

from joss-reviews.

@haesleinhuepf Would you be interested in helping to review this paper, JOSS review guidelines can be found here. I'd also be happy to directly answer any questions on our processes if you've not come across the journal before.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot add @jingpengw as reviewer

from joss-reviews.

@jingpengw added to the reviewers list!

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate my checklist

from joss-reviews.

Checklists can only be created once the review has started in the review issue

from joss-reviews.

@haesleinhuepf Would you be interested in helping to review this paper

I'm happy to review this paper; but not in the next three weeks 🌞

from joss-reviews.

No worries! That would still be acceptable 😊

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot add @haesleinhuepf reviewer

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 add @haesleinhuepf as reviewer

from joss-reviews.

@haesleinhuepf added to the reviewers list!

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot start review

from joss-reviews.

OK, I've started the review over in #5871.

from joss-reviews.