[REVIEW]: beamshapes: a Python package to generate directivity patterns for various sound source models #3740

whedon · 2021-09-20T13:35:28Z

Submitting author: @thejasvibr (Beleyur Thejasvi)
Repository: https://github.com/thejasvibr/bat_beamshapes
Version: v0.2.2
Editor: @faroit
Reviewer: @nils-werner, @hagenw
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5819771

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/820fd37f8255a8c533d6cc4c9475ecb5"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/820fd37f8255a8c533d6cc4c9475ecb5/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/820fd37f8255a8c533d6cc4c9475ecb5/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/820fd37f8255a8c533d6cc4c9475ecb5)

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

@nils-werner & @hagenw, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @faroit 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 ✨

Review checklist for @nils-werner

✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨

Conflict of interest

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

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@thejasvibr) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
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

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
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

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
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 and who the target audience is?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
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 @hagenw

✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨

Conflict of interest

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

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@thejasvibr) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
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

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
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

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
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 and who the target audience is?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
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?

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

whedon · 2021-09-20T13:35:32Z

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @nils-werner, @hagenw it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper 🎉.

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

⭐ Important ⭐

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf

whedon · 2021-09-20T13:35:40Z

Wordcount for paper.md is 1075

whedon · 2021-09-20T13:35:42Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/c2011-0-05897-0 is OK
- 10.1016/c2017-0-01630-0 is OK
- 10.1121/1.1912304 is OK
- 10.1007/bf00610475 is OK
- 10.1098/rspb.2008.1505  is OK
- 10.1121/10.0001376 is OK
- 10.1038/nature11664 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1422843112 is OK
- 10.1121/1.3519408 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.7717/peerj-cs.103 is OK
- 10.1016/j.beproc.2019.103996 is OK
- 10.1007/bf00657481 is OK
- 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.07.005 is OK
- 10.2307/1367730 is OK
- 10.1098/rspb.2009.1519 is OK
- 10.2307/3676376 is OK
- 10.1007/s00265-006-0343-5 is OK
- 10.1046/j.1439-0361.2002.02045.x is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon · 2021-09-20T13:35:43Z

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.25 s (244.0 files/s, 164799.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML                             2           3522              4          25979
Python                          32            969           1913           2056
TeX                              2             50             21            457
Jupyter Notebook                 5              0           4112            403
reStructuredText                10            218            165            231
Markdown                         5             92              0            192
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
YAML                             1              3              0              9
make                             1              4              7              9
Rmd                              1             22             47              0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            60           4888           6270          29362
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Statistical information for the repository '697cb4b22077886fb5984442' was
gathered on 2021/09/20.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
tbeleyur                        12          1141            135           10.99
thejasvi                        75          7135           3167           88.72
thejasvibr                       1            32              2            0.29

Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:

Author                     Rows      Stability          Age       % in comments
tbeleyur                    259           22.7          8.2                6.95
thejasvi                   4679           65.6          2.4               19.90

whedon · 2021-09-20T13:36:07Z

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

faroit · 2021-09-20T13:37:01Z

👏 @nils-werner @hagenw - This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

Both of you have checklists at the top of this thread (in that first comment) with the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention #3740 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

whedon · 2021-10-04T13:35:37Z

👋 @hagenw, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

whedon · 2021-10-04T13:35:37Z

👋 @nils-werner, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

hagenw · 2021-10-08T13:40:25Z

wave @hagenw, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

I will do my review next week.

danielskatz · 2022-01-08T16:04:57Z

@openjournals/dev - can you see what the problem is here - recommend-accept from the branch doesn't work, but generate pdf from the branch does

thejasvibr · 2022-01-09T20:56:35Z

Thanks for checking @danielskatz @openjournals/dev . Have deleted the ms branch, and now the package + latest paper version are in the same branch (dev). Hopefully this will lead to better luck?

danielskatz · 2022-01-09T21:35:50Z

@whedon recommend-accept

whedon · 2022-01-09T21:35:54Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon · 2022-01-09T21:36:01Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/c2011-0-05897-0 is OK
- 10.1016/c2017-0-01630-0 is OK
- 10.1121/1.1912304 is OK
- 10.1109/ICASSP.2018.8461310 is OK
- 10.1007/bf00610475 is OK
- 10.1098/rspb.2008.1505  is OK
- 10.1121/10.0001376 is OK
- 10.1038/nature11664 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1422843112 is OK
- 10.1121/1.3519408 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.7717/peerj-cs.103 is OK
- 10.1016/j.beproc.2019.103996 is OK
- 10.1007/bf00657481 is OK
- 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.07.005 is OK
- 10.2307/1367730 is OK
- 10.1098/rspb.2009.1519 is OK
- 10.2307/3676376 is OK
- 10.1007/s00265-006-0343-5 is OK
- 10.1046/j.1439-0361.2002.02045.x is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon · 2022-01-09T21:36:34Z

👋 @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#2872

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#2872, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

danielskatz · 2022-01-09T21:45:02Z

👋 @thejasvibr - a few more small changes are in thejasvibr/bat_beamshapes#25 - if you can merge this, I can proceed to publication

thejasvibr · 2022-01-10T06:03:11Z

✔️ Changes to manuscript merged. PDF looks good!

danielskatz · 2022-01-10T13:11:07Z

@whedon recommend-accept

whedon · 2022-01-10T13:11:12Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon · 2022-01-10T13:11:19Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/c2011-0-05897-0 is OK
- 10.1016/c2017-0-01630-0 is OK
- 10.1121/1.1912304 is OK
- 10.1109/ICASSP.2018.8461310 is OK
- 10.1007/bf00610475 is OK
- 10.1098/rspb.2008.1505  is OK
- 10.1121/10.0001376 is OK
- 10.1038/nature11664 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1422843112 is OK
- 10.1121/1.3519408 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.7717/peerj-cs.103 is OK
- 10.1016/j.beproc.2019.103996 is OK
- 10.1007/bf00657481 is OK
- 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.07.005 is OK
- 10.2307/1367730 is OK
- 10.1098/rspb.2009.1519 is OK
- 10.2307/3676376 is OK
- 10.1007/s00265-006-0343-5 is OK
- 10.1046/j.1439-0361.2002.02045.x is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon · 2022-01-10T13:11:46Z

👋 @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#2873

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#2873, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

danielskatz · 2022-01-10T13:16:51Z

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon · 2022-01-10T13:16:54Z

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

whedon · 2022-01-10T13:17:42Z

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

whedon · 2022-01-10T13:17:43Z

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.03740 joss-papers#2874
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03740
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

danielskatz · 2022-01-10T13:28:55Z

@thejasvibr - I'm waiting for the DOI to resolve before I will close this issue and declare the paper published. While this usually happens quickly, sometimes it can take a little bit.

@arfon - any thoughts?

danielskatz · 2022-01-10T14:58:57Z

This is now published.

Congratulations to @thejasvibr (Beleyur Thejasvi)!!

Thanks to @nils-werner and @hagenw for reviewing, and @faroit for editing!
We couldn't do this without you!

whedon · 2022-01-10T14:59:01Z

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03740/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03740)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03740">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03740/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03740/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03740

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

arfon · 2022-01-10T14:59:40Z

@arfon - any thoughts?

Looks like this line was breaking the XML generation https://github.com/thejasvibr/bat_beamshapes/blob/dev/paper.bib#L186. I've fixed this manually and redeposited the XML with Crossref.

thejasvibr · 2022-01-10T15:41:12Z

This is now published.

Congratulations to @thejasvibr (Beleyur Thejasvi)!!

Thanks to @nils-werner and @hagenw for reviewing, and @faroit for editing! We couldn't do this without you!

Yay, thanks again to all involved _ /\ _ !

faroit · 2022-01-10T15:47:57Z

@thejasvibr Congrats to the publication and many 🙏 to @nils-werner and @hagenw for your incredible detailed reviews.

faroit · 2022-01-10T15:48:34Z

@arfon @danielskatz Thanks for helping out on the bibtex madness.

whedon added HTML Jupyter Notebook Python review labels Sep 20, 2021

whedon assigned faroit Sep 20, 2021

whedon mentioned this issue Sep 20, 2021

[PRE REVIEW]: beamshapes: a Python package to generate directivity patterns for various sound source models #3590

Closed

whedon assigned hagenw and nils-werner Sep 21, 2021

whedon added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Jan 10, 2022

danielskatz closed this as completed Jan 10, 2022

editorialbot mentioned this issue Oct 23, 2023

[PRE REVIEW]: Shapelets: A Python package implementing shapelet functions and their applications #5911

Closed

editorialbot mentioned this issue Jan 11, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: pySLM2: A full-stack python package for holographic beam shaping #6205

Closed

editorialbot mentioned this issue Nov 18, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: NoiseModelling: an open-source software for outdoor noise mapping #7500

Open

editorialbot mentioned this issue Dec 11, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: beamxs - A Python Library for Design and Analysis of Simply Supported Beams #7581

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[REVIEW]: beamshapes: a Python package to generate directivity patterns for various sound source models #3740

[REVIEW]: beamshapes: a Python package to generate directivity patterns for various sound source models #3740

whedon commented Sep 20, 2021 •

edited by danielskatz

Loading

whedon commented Sep 20, 2021

whedon commented Sep 20, 2021

whedon commented Sep 20, 2021

whedon commented Sep 20, 2021

whedon commented Sep 20, 2021

faroit commented Sep 20, 2021

whedon commented Oct 4, 2021

whedon commented Oct 4, 2021

hagenw commented Oct 8, 2021

danielskatz commented Jan 8, 2022

thejasvibr commented Jan 9, 2022

danielskatz commented Jan 9, 2022

whedon commented Jan 9, 2022

whedon commented Jan 9, 2022

whedon commented Jan 9, 2022

danielskatz commented Jan 9, 2022

thejasvibr commented Jan 10, 2022

danielskatz commented Jan 10, 2022

whedon commented Jan 10, 2022

whedon commented Jan 10, 2022

whedon commented Jan 10, 2022

danielskatz commented Jan 10, 2022

whedon commented Jan 10, 2022

whedon commented Jan 10, 2022

whedon commented Jan 10, 2022

danielskatz commented Jan 10, 2022 •

edited

Loading

danielskatz commented Jan 10, 2022

whedon commented Jan 10, 2022

arfon commented Jan 10, 2022

thejasvibr commented Jan 10, 2022

faroit commented Jan 10, 2022

faroit commented Jan 10, 2022

[REVIEW]: beamshapes: a Python package to generate directivity patterns for various sound source models #3740

[REVIEW]: beamshapes: a Python package to generate directivity patterns for various sound source models #3740

Comments

whedon commented Sep 20, 2021 • edited by danielskatz Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Review checklist for @nils-werner

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @hagenw

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

whedon commented Sep 20, 2021

whedon commented Sep 20, 2021

whedon commented Sep 20, 2021

whedon commented Sep 20, 2021

whedon commented Sep 20, 2021

faroit commented Sep 20, 2021

whedon commented Oct 4, 2021

whedon commented Oct 4, 2021

hagenw commented Oct 8, 2021

danielskatz commented Jan 8, 2022

thejasvibr commented Jan 9, 2022

danielskatz commented Jan 9, 2022

whedon commented Jan 9, 2022

whedon commented Jan 9, 2022

whedon commented Jan 9, 2022

danielskatz commented Jan 9, 2022

thejasvibr commented Jan 10, 2022

danielskatz commented Jan 10, 2022

whedon commented Jan 10, 2022

whedon commented Jan 10, 2022

whedon commented Jan 10, 2022

danielskatz commented Jan 10, 2022

whedon commented Jan 10, 2022

whedon commented Jan 10, 2022

whedon commented Jan 10, 2022

danielskatz commented Jan 10, 2022 • edited Loading

danielskatz commented Jan 10, 2022

whedon commented Jan 10, 2022

arfon commented Jan 10, 2022

thejasvibr commented Jan 10, 2022

faroit commented Jan 10, 2022

faroit commented Jan 10, 2022

whedon commented Sep 20, 2021 •

edited by danielskatz

Loading

danielskatz commented Jan 10, 2022 •

edited

Loading