[REVIEW]: G'MIC: An Open-Source Self-Extending Framework for Image Processing #6618

editorialbot · 2024-04-13T21:41:55Z

Submitting author: @dtschump (David Tschumperlé)
Repository: https://github.com/GreycLab/gmic
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss
Version: 3.4.3
Editor: @gkthiruvathukal
Reviewers: @jamesrhester, @Smattr, @NicholasSynovic
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.13936919

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3a7bf663fe762a18b348e74ddfc568c8"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3a7bf663fe762a18b348e74ddfc568c8/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3a7bf663fe762a18b348e74ddfc568c8/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3a7bf663fe762a18b348e74ddfc568c8)

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

@jamesrhester & @Smattr & @drj11, 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 @gkthiruvathukal 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 @jamesrhester

📝 Checklist for @Smattr

📝 Checklist for @NicholasSynovic

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

editorialbot · 2024-04-13T21:41:58Z

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

editorialbot · 2024-04-13T21:42:27Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.13 s (431.0 files/s, 349651.7 lines/s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                      files          blank        comment           code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C++                               3            920            755          13939
SVG                               5             12              4          11995
JavaScript                       13           1127            207           9089
CSS                               3            160             68           1615
HTML                              6            116             70           1295
Markdown                          3            250              0            676
make                              3            112            331            589
CMake                             7             87             70            390
Bourne Again Shell                5             66            101            387
C/C++ Header                      1             99             94            382
TeX                               1             22              0            185
XML                               1              0              0             36
Scheme                            1             10             45             31
YAML                              2              1              4             19
Bourne Shell                      2              5             56              6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                             56           2987           1805          40634
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

  1089	David Tschumperle
     1	Garry R. Osgood

editorialbot · 2024-04-13T21:42:30Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/icip46576.2022.9897386 is OK
- 10.1109/icip46576.2022.9897334 is OK
- 10.1137/19m1306798 is OK
- 10.1109/tip.2015.2411437 is OK
- 10.1109/99.660313 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-023-06551-1 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: ImageMagick
- No DOI given, and none found for title: GraphicsMagick
- No DOI given, and none found for title: CImg: C++ Template Image Processing Toolkit
- No DOI given, and none found for title: G’MIC: GREYC’s Magic for Image Computing
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A fast and efficient semi-guided algorithm for fla...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A non-local algorithm for image denoising
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Mémoire sur l’itération des fonctions rationnelles
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Buddhabrot Technique
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Lineart Bucket Fill
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Fractalius.
- No DOI given, and none found for title: David Revoy, Comic book artist and Art Director
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Pepper & Carrot, A free(libre) and open-source web...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The MathMap Image Processing Application
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Pixelitor
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Filter Forge
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A cross-platform software for creating graphical u...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A neural algorithm of artistic style

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-04-13T21:42:33Z

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1576

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot · 2024-04-13T21:42:37Z

License info:

🟡 License found: Other (Check here for OSI approval)

editorialbot · 2024-04-13T21:43:43Z

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

jamesrhester · 2024-04-13T23:17:02Z

Review checklist for @jamesrhester

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 https://github.com/GreycLab/gmic?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@dtschump) 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
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
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?

drj11 · 2024-04-14T18:04:31Z

Review checklist for @drj11

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 https://github.com/GreycLab/gmic?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@dtschump) 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
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
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?

gkthiruvathukal · 2024-05-04T15:20:41Z

@jamesrhester, @Smattr, @drj11 Have you been able to get started with this JOSS review?

danielskatz · 2024-05-27T07:38:43Z

👋 @gkthiruvathukal, @jamesrhester, @Smattr, @drj11 - I want to check on the progress of this review. Is there anything blocking its progress?

jamesrhester · 2024-05-27T08:11:05Z

Just haven't got to it yet, nothing blocking.

…

On Mon, 27 May 2024 at 17:39, Daniel S. Katz ***@***.***> wrote: 👋 @gkthiruvathukal <https://github.com/gkthiruvathukal>, @jamesrhester <https://github.com/jamesrhester>, @Smattr <https://github.com/Smattr>, @drj11 <https://github.com/drj11> - I want to check on the progress of this review. Is there anything blocking its progress? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#6618 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAF2GPWYHNE26CZ4WFQ3ONDZELPJVAVCNFSM6AAAAABGFYPTXWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMZSHA2DANJTGI> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- T +61 (02) 9717 9907 F +61 (02) 9717 3145 M +61 (04) 0249 4148

gkthiruvathukal · 2024-05-28T02:28:57Z

Thanks, @jamesrhester. Do you have an ETA?

@Smattr, @drj11, can you let us know whether you can complete your review? We need at least two completed reviews to proceed.

Smattr · 2024-05-28T07:42:38Z

Like jamesrhester, I just haven’t had time yet. My previous comment about not being available until May was not a request to be assigned as a reviewer, assuming I would immediately start May 1 😉. I think I should have some time upcoming, but fair warning I have not taken even a cursory glance at the paper yet to see if I’m qualified to review.

drj11 · 2024-06-03T09:38:30Z

i have been on holiday and i'm back now. i've had a poke around their documentation, and i don't see a problem with proceeding. I'll try it and get it done by Friday. 2024-06-07

gkthiruvathukal · 2024-06-04T01:36:33Z

Thanks, @Smattr and @drj11. No worries. Happy to have you on board!

Smattr · 2024-06-08T23:47:58Z

Review checklist for @Smattr

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 https://github.com/GreycLab/gmic?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@dtschump) 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
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
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?

Smattr · 2024-06-17T07:14:21Z

FYI for other reviewers, as per GreycLab/gmic#55 (comment) apparently we’re supposed to review the release tarball not the current content on Github.

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T13:23:58Z

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1201/9781003323693 is OK
- 10.1109/icip46576.2022.9897386 is OK
- 10.1109/icip46576.2022.9897334 is OK
- 10.1137/19m1306798 is OK
- 10.1109/tip.2015.2411437 is OK
- 10.1109/99.660313 is OK
- 10.1167/16.12.326 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-023-06551-1 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: ImageMagick
- No DOI given, and none found for title: GraphicsMagick
- No DOI given, and none found for title: G’MIC: GREYC’s Magic for Image Computing
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A fast and efficient semi-guided algorithm for fla...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A non-local algorithm for image denoising
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Mémoire sur l’itération des fonctions rationnelles
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Buddhabrot Technique
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Lineart Bucket Fill
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Fractalius.
- No DOI given, and none found for title: David Revoy, Comic book artist and Art Director
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Pepper & Carrot, A free(libre) and open-source web...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The MathMap Image Processing Application
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Pixelitor
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Filter Forge
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A cross-platform software for creating graphical u...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T13:25:07Z

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

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#6315, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz · 2025-01-09T15:05:54Z

@dtschump - I've suggested a number of changes in GreycLab/gmic#94, and also note that you don't have an acknowledgments section, which could be used to mention funding, if needed.

Can you merge the changes, or let me know what you disagree with?
And then consider adding an acknowledgments section?

dtschump · 2025-01-09T15:43:18Z

Hello @danielskatz .
I've merged your changes, thanks a lot for the corrections.

I've also added an "Acknowledgements" section, as suggested, with commit: GreycLab/gmic@d522b0f

Thanks for the suggestion!

danielskatz · 2025-01-09T15:44:20Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T15:44:23Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T15:44:51Z

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1201/9781003323693 is OK
- 10.1109/icip46576.2022.9897386 is OK
- 10.1109/icip46576.2022.9897334 is OK
- 10.1137/19m1306798 is OK
- 10.1109/tip.2015.2411437 is OK
- 10.1109/99.660313 is OK
- 10.1167/16.12.326 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-023-06551-1 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: ImageMagick
- No DOI given, and none found for title: GraphicsMagick
- No DOI given, and none found for title: G’MIC: GREYC’s Magic for Image Computing
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A fast and efficient semi-guided algorithm for fla...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A non-local algorithm for image denoising
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Mémoire sur l’itération des fonctions rationnelles
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Buddhabrot Technique
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Lineart Bucket Fill
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Fractalius.
- No DOI given, and none found for title: David Revoy, Comic book artist and Art Director
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Pepper & Carrot, A free(libre) and open-source web...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The MathMap Image Processing Application
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Pixelitor
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Filter Forge
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A cross-platform software for creating graphical u...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T15:46:11Z

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

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#6318, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz · 2025-01-09T15:48:21Z

@dtschump - Can you check the "final" proof above and verify that it all looks good to you?

dtschump · 2025-01-09T15:55:08Z

@danielskatz , I've read the proof and found a single issue, that is fixed with: GreycLab/gmic@23e1178
(link to G'MIC-Qt github repo was not correct anymore, as it moved from Sebastien Fourey's account to the GREYC account, after his passing).

danielskatz · 2025-01-09T15:57:10Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T15:57:12Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T15:57:48Z

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1201/9781003323693 is OK
- 10.1109/icip46576.2022.9897386 is OK
- 10.1109/icip46576.2022.9897334 is OK
- 10.1137/19m1306798 is OK
- 10.1109/tip.2015.2411437 is OK
- 10.1109/99.660313 is OK
- 10.1167/16.12.326 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-023-06551-1 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: ImageMagick
- No DOI given, and none found for title: GraphicsMagick
- No DOI given, and none found for title: G’MIC: GREYC’s Magic for Image Computing
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A fast and efficient semi-guided algorithm for fla...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A non-local algorithm for image denoising
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Mémoire sur l’itération des fonctions rationnelles
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Buddhabrot Technique
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Lineart Bucket Fill
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Fractalius.
- No DOI given, and none found for title: David Revoy, Comic book artist and Art Director
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Pepper & Carrot, A free(libre) and open-source web...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The MathMap Image Processing Application
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Pixelitor
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Filter Forge
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A cross-platform software for creating graphical u...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T15:59:06Z

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

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#6319, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

dtschump · 2025-01-09T16:02:04Z

@danielskatz Looks good to me now, sorry for the inconvenience :)

danielskatz · 2025-01-09T16:02:26Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T16:02:29Z

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

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T16:10:06Z

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Tschumperlé
  given-names: David
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3454-5079"
- family-names: Fourey
  given-names: Sébastien
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9293-0771"
- family-names: Osgood
  given-names: Garry
contact:
- family-names: Tschumperlé
  given-names: David
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3454-5079"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13936919
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Tschumperlé
    given-names: David
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3454-5079"
  - family-names: Fourey
    given-names: Sébastien
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9293-0771"
  - family-names: Osgood
    given-names: Garry
  date-published: 2025-01-09
  doi: 10.21105/joss.06618
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 105
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 6618
  title: "G'MIC: An Open-Source Self-Extending Framework for Image
    Processing"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06618"
  volume: 10
title: "G'MIC: An Open-Source Self-Extending Framework for Image
  Processing"

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T16:10:11Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T16:10:12Z

🦋🦋🦋 👉 Bluesky post for this paper 👈 🦋🦋🦋

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T16:10:13Z

🚨🚨🚨 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.06618 joss-papers#6320
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06618
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

danielskatz · 2025-01-09T16:19:02Z

Congratulations to @dtschump (David Tschumperlé) and co-authors on your publication!!

And thanks to @jamesrhester, @Smattr, and @NicholasSynovic for reviewing, and to @gkthiruvathukal for editing!
JOSS fully depends on volunteers and couldn't do this without you

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T16:19:04Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.06618/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06618)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06618">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06618/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06618/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06618

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The 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://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-open-journals

dtschump · 2025-01-09T16:28:23Z

Thanks @danielskatz and thanks to the reviewers! 🎆

Smattr · 2025-01-10T07:56:09Z

Congrats @dtschump! And sorry it was such a long road.

dtschump · 2025-01-10T08:55:41Z

@Smattr , In France, there's a saying that free software supporters often use: “The road is long, but the path is free”.
We all know that developing free and/or open-source software is all about patience. :)

gkthiruvathukal · 2025-01-11T05:28:55Z

@dtschump Congrats and thank you for your incredible patience!

editorialbot added CMake HTML Makefile review TeX Track: 7 (CSISM) Computer science, Information Science, and Mathematics labels Apr 13, 2024

editorialbot assigned gkthiruvathukal Apr 13, 2024

editorialbot mentioned this issue Apr 13, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: G'MIC: An Open-Source Self-Extending Framework for Image Processing #6056

Closed

editorialbot added C++ JavaScript labels Apr 13, 2024

This was referenced Jun 8, 2024

[JOSS] ambiguous library description GreycLab/gmic#53

Closed

[JOSS] community guidelines GreycLab/gmic#54

Closed

[JOSS] project does not build GreycLab/gmic#55

Closed

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Jan 9, 2025

danielskatz closed this as completed Jan 9, 2025

[REVIEW]: G'MIC: An Open-Source Self-Extending Framework for Image Processing #6618

[REVIEW]: G'MIC: An Open-Source Self-Extending Framework for Image Processing #6618

Comments

editorialbot commented Apr 13, 2024 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Apr 13, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 13, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 13, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 13, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 13, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 13, 2024

jamesrhester commented Apr 13, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @jamesrhester

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

drj11 commented Apr 14, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @drj11

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

gkthiruvathukal commented May 4, 2024

danielskatz commented May 27, 2024

jamesrhester commented May 27, 2024 via email

gkthiruvathukal commented May 28, 2024

Smattr commented May 28, 2024

drj11 commented Jun 3, 2024

gkthiruvathukal commented Jun 4, 2024

Smattr commented Jun 8, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @Smattr

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Smattr commented Jun 17, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

danielskatz commented Jan 9, 2025

dtschump commented Jan 9, 2025

danielskatz commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

danielskatz commented Jan 9, 2025

dtschump commented Jan 9, 2025

danielskatz commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

dtschump commented Jan 9, 2025

danielskatz commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

danielskatz commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

dtschump commented Jan 9, 2025

Smattr commented Jan 10, 2025

dtschump commented Jan 10, 2025 • edited Loading

gkthiruvathukal commented Jan 11, 2025

editorialbot commented Apr 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading

jamesrhester commented Apr 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading

drj11 commented Apr 14, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Smattr commented Jun 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

dtschump commented Jan 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading