[REVIEW]: Biosensor Framework: A C# Library for Affective Computing #3455

whedon · 2021-07-06T12:50:49Z

Submitting author: @wsarce (Walker Arce)
Repository: https://github.com/Munroe-Meyer-Institute-VR-Laboratory/Biosensor-Framework
Version: 1.0.0
Editor: @osorensen
Reviewer: @professoralkmin, @AustinTSchaffer
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5161984

⚠️ 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/ce2098ed62af72faa9a4817dabdc34e3"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ce2098ed62af72faa9a4817dabdc34e3/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ce2098ed62af72faa9a4817dabdc34e3/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ce2098ed62af72faa9a4817dabdc34e3)

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

@professoralkmin & @AustinTSchaffer, 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 @osorensen 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 @professoralkmin

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 (@wsarce) 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 @AustinTSchaffer

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 (@wsarce) 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 · 2021-07-06T12:50:53Z

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @professoralkmin, @AustinTSchaffer 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 · 2021-07-06T12:51:09Z

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.13 s (327.2 files/s, 87353.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C#                              28            489           1410           3326
Markdown                         5           1266              0           2339
XML                              4             21              0           1569
MSBuild script                   3              7              0            349
TeX                              1              0              0            170
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            41           1783           1410           7753
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Statistical information for the repository 'b80f3946c7962bd08b95fbd7' was
gathered on 2021/07/06.
No commited files with the specified extensions were found.

whedon · 2021-07-06T12:51:17Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/3242969.3242985 is OK
- 10.1109/tits.2005.848368 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-91262-2_16 is OK
- 10.1145/3027063.3053140 is OK
- 10.1016/j.trf.2019.09.015 is OK
- 10.24251/hicss.2020.456 is OK
- 10.37896/jxu15.3/018 is OK
- 10.1109/10.979357 is OK
- 10.3390/s121217620 is OK
- 10.1080/19315864.2019.1595233 is OK
- 10.1002/aur.1433 is OK
- 10.1145/3136755.3143025 is OK
- 10.1089/cyber.2019.0093 is OK
- 10.1186/s12984-015-0010-z is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon · 2021-07-06T12:51:24Z

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

osorensen · 2021-07-06T12:52:22Z

@AustinTSchaffer, regarding your question in the other thread. Here is the review issue, and hopefully the information above will help get you started. Feel very welcome to contact me if you have any more questions about the review process.

whedon · 2021-07-20T12:50:55Z

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

whedon · 2021-07-20T12:50:55Z

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

professoralkmin · 2021-07-28T11:25:06Z

Looks good to me, and I have sure this work presents a genuine academic contribution.

So as reviewer, I recommend acceptance.

osorensen · 2021-07-30T18:11:36Z

Thanks for completing your review, @professoralkmin!

AustinTSchaffer · 2021-07-31T00:31:58Z

Hey all, sorry for not giving a review yet. I've set aside some time for this tomorrow.

…

On Fri, Jul 30, 2021, 2:11 PM Øystein Sørensen ***@***.***> wrote: Thanks for completing your review, @professoralkmin <https://github.com/professoralkmin>! — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#3455 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AD3PHG2X3Q5EHFJCXECQG7TT2LTOJANCNFSM474QMZKA> .

AustinTSchaffer · 2021-07-31T14:19:55Z

Testing: I don't see any unit tests or integration tests.

Installation: The project mentions NuGet and Unity for installation, though provides few details. The Readme should probably at least link to the project's page on NuGet, which provides additional help with how to get the package installed with a variety of tools. Also, the package itself is a .NET Standard 2.0 project, but the provided examples are .NET Framework 4.7, which makes it hard to tell if this project only works on Windows, or if it can be used on Mac or Linux.

This work appears to satisfy all of the requirements of acceptance, except for automated tests. Unless automated testing is a strict requirement, and barring minor confusions with installation, I recommend acceptance.

osorensen · 2021-07-31T15:26:27Z

Thanks for your review @AustinTSchaffer!

Regarding unit tests, the Review criteria say the following:

Good: An automated test suite hooked up to continuous integration (GitHub Actions, Circle CI, or similar)
OK: Documented manual steps that can be followed to objectively check the expected functionality of the software (e.g., a sample input file to assert behavior)
Bad (not acceptable): No way for you, the reviewer, to objectively assess whether the software works

@wsarce, could you please elaborate on how the reviewers can test the software, and if necessary, add additional unit test?

@wsarce, please also answer the issue @AustinTSchaffer raised about Installation.

wsarce · 2021-08-01T15:10:32Z

@osorensen, I've added a third example project that tests the affective computing tasks without the need for an attached body-worn sensor. It processes the WESAD dataset that is provided in the Dataset folder of the repo and reports the results in the Console output.

@AustinTSchaffer, The NuGet package link as well as installation CLI command has been added to the readme. This project was written to be OS agnostic, .NET Standard 2.0 should run on Windows, Linux, and MacOS. The examples are .NET Framework 4.7 to utilize the Console and were written on Windows 10. Instructions for installing Unity package has been added to the readme as well.

Let me know if there are any other concerns. Thank you for the feedback and your time!

osorensen · 2021-08-01T16:40:42Z

Thanks for the update @wsarce.

@AustinTSchaffer, if you find the tests/examples described in the comment by @wsarce satisfactory, please tick off the last box on the reviewer checklist.

AustinTSchaffer · 2021-08-02T13:29:36Z

LGTM!

osorensen · 2021-08-02T16:08:08Z

@whedon generate pdf

whedon · 2021-08-02T16:08:38Z

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

osorensen · 2021-08-02T16:28:51Z

@wsarce, the paper is well written, but I noted the following issues which need to be fixed before acceptance.

On page 1, line 21, there should be a full stop (i.e., ".") at the end of the paragraph.
On page 1, line 40, and page 2, line 1, please make sure the parenthesized references are in alphabetic order.
On page 2, line 1, please fix the reference "gjoreski2016continuous".
On page 2, line 51, please make sure the reference "Jennifer Anne Healey, 2000" has the format (Last name, Year).
On page 2, line 77, the name is missing from the reference.
On page 4, lines 121-125: the citation does not appear correctly.
On page 4, lines 130-132: please add DOI 10.2196/13725.
On page 5, lines 150-153: please make sure WESAD is written in capital letters. You can fix this by putting curly braces around the word "wesad" in your source .bib file, i.e., "{WESAD}".

osorensen · 2021-08-02T16:28:59Z

@whedon check references

whedon · 2021-08-02T16:29:17Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/3242969.3242985 is OK
- 10.1109/tits.2005.848368 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-91262-2_16 is OK
- 10.1145/3027063.3053140 is OK
- 10.1016/j.trf.2019.09.015 is OK
- 10.24251/hicss.2020.456 is OK
- 10.37896/jxu15.3/018 is OK
- 10.1109/10.979357 is OK
- 10.3390/s121217620 is OK
- 10.1080/19315864.2019.1595233 is OK
- 10.1002/aur.1433 is OK
- 10.1145/3136755.3143025 is OK
- 10.1089/cyber.2019.0093 is OK
- 10.1186/s12984-015-0010-z is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

wsarce · 2021-08-02T23:44:03Z

@whedon generate pdf

whedon · 2021-08-02T23:44:32Z

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

wsarce · 2021-08-02T23:48:42Z

@osorensen, I think I addressed all of the changes needed. Let me know if I missed anything. Thank you!

wsarce · 2021-08-05T00:29:20Z

@osorensen, alright, I got it working. The DOI from Zenodo is: 10.5281/zenodo.5161984. All of the metadata looks correct and a citation file was generated for the repo. Let me know if anything doesn't look right. Thank you!

osorensen · 2021-08-05T11:54:41Z

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.5161984 as archive

whedon · 2021-08-05T11:54:44Z

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.5161984 is the archive.

osorensen · 2021-08-05T11:55:29Z

@whedon set 1.0.0 as version

whedon · 2021-08-05T11:55:33Z

OK. 1.0.0 is the version.

osorensen · 2021-08-05T11:58:24Z

@wsarce, I noticed that the title of the zenodo archive is "Munroe-Meyer-Institute-VR-Laboratory/Biosensor-Framework: Biosensor-Framework" whereas the title of the paper is "Biosensor Framework: A C# Library for Affective Computing". Could you please edit the title of the archive so it matches the paper?

wsarce · 2021-08-05T12:29:49Z

@osorensen, the title of the archive has been updated.

osorensen · 2021-08-05T12:59:11Z

@whedon generate pdf

whedon · 2021-08-05T12:59:43Z

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

osorensen · 2021-08-05T13:01:34Z

@wsarce, I noticed one reference which does not appear correctly, cf. line 37 on page 1 of the article proof.

wsarce · 2021-08-05T13:06:51Z

@whedon check references

whedon · 2021-08-05T13:07:03Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/3242969.3242985 is OK
- 10.1109/tits.2005.848368 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-91262-2_16 is OK
- 10.1145/2968219.2968306 is OK
- 10.1145/3027063.3053140 is OK
- 10.1016/j.trf.2019.09.015 is OK
- 10.2196/13725 is OK
- 10.24251/hicss.2020.456 is OK
- 10.37896/jxu15.3/018 is OK
- 10.1109/10.979357 is OK
- 10.3390/s121217620 is OK
- 10.1080/19315864.2019.1595233 is OK
- 10.1002/aur.1433 is OK
- 10.1145/3136755.3143025 is OK
- 10.1089/cyber.2019.0093 is OK
- 10.1186/s12984-015-0010-z is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

wsarce · 2021-08-05T13:07:24Z

@whedon generate pdf

whedon · 2021-08-05T13:07:54Z

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

wsarce · 2021-08-05T13:12:07Z

@osorensen, that reference issue should be fixed.

osorensen · 2021-08-05T13:12:08Z

@whedon recommend-accept

whedon · 2021-08-05T13:12:11Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon · 2021-08-05T13:12:22Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/3242969.3242985 is OK
- 10.1109/tits.2005.848368 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-91262-2_16 is OK
- 10.1145/2968219.2968306 is OK
- 10.1145/3027063.3053140 is OK
- 10.1016/j.trf.2019.09.015 is OK
- 10.2196/13725 is OK
- 10.24251/hicss.2020.456 is OK
- 10.37896/jxu15.3/018 is OK
- 10.1109/10.979357 is OK
- 10.3390/s121217620 is OK
- 10.1080/19315864.2019.1595233 is OK
- 10.1002/aur.1433 is OK
- 10.1145/3136755.3143025 is OK
- 10.1089/cyber.2019.0093 is OK
- 10.1186/s12984-015-0010-z is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon · 2021-08-05T13:12:42Z

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

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#2496

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#2496, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

arfon · 2021-08-06T20:57:39Z

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon · 2021-08-06T20:57:42Z

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

whedon · 2021-08-06T20:58:25Z

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

whedon · 2021-08-06T20:58:26Z

🚨🚨🚨 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.03455 joss-papers#2501
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03455
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

arfon · 2021-08-06T21:00:53Z

@professoralkmin, @AustinTSchaffer – many thanks for your reviews here and to @osorensen for editing this submission! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you ✨

@wsarce – your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS ⚡🚀💥

whedon · 2021-08-06T21:00:56Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.03455/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03455)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03455">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03455/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03455/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03455

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

whedon added C# review TeX labels Jul 6, 2021

whedon assigned osorensen Jul 6, 2021

whedon mentioned this issue Jul 6, 2021

[PRE REVIEW]: Biosensor Framework: A C# Library for Affective Computing #3328

Closed

whedon assigned AustinTSchaffer and professoralkmin Jul 7, 2021

whedon added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Aug 5, 2021

whedon added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Aug 6, 2021

arfon closed this as completed Aug 6, 2021

editorialbot mentioned this issue Aug 19, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: Analix: an external agent detection software based on magnetoelastic sensors #7116

Closed

[REVIEW]: Biosensor Framework: A C# Library for Affective Computing #3455

[REVIEW]: Biosensor Framework: A C# Library for Affective Computing #3455

Comments

whedon commented Jul 6, 2021 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Review checklist for @professoralkmin

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @AustinTSchaffer

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

whedon commented Jul 6, 2021

whedon commented Jul 6, 2021

whedon commented Jul 6, 2021

whedon commented Jul 6, 2021

osorensen commented Jul 6, 2021

whedon commented Jul 20, 2021

whedon commented Jul 20, 2021

professoralkmin commented Jul 28, 2021

osorensen commented Jul 30, 2021

AustinTSchaffer commented Jul 31, 2021 via email

AustinTSchaffer commented Jul 31, 2021

osorensen commented Jul 31, 2021

wsarce commented Aug 1, 2021

osorensen commented Aug 1, 2021

AustinTSchaffer commented Aug 2, 2021

osorensen commented Aug 2, 2021

whedon commented Aug 2, 2021

osorensen commented Aug 2, 2021

osorensen commented Aug 2, 2021

whedon commented Aug 2, 2021

wsarce commented Aug 2, 2021

whedon commented Aug 2, 2021

wsarce commented Aug 2, 2021

wsarce commented Aug 5, 2021

osorensen commented Aug 5, 2021

whedon commented Aug 5, 2021

osorensen commented Aug 5, 2021

whedon commented Aug 5, 2021

osorensen commented Aug 5, 2021

wsarce commented Aug 5, 2021

osorensen commented Aug 5, 2021

whedon commented Aug 5, 2021

osorensen commented Aug 5, 2021

wsarce commented Aug 5, 2021

whedon commented Aug 5, 2021

wsarce commented Aug 5, 2021

whedon commented Aug 5, 2021

wsarce commented Aug 5, 2021

osorensen commented Aug 5, 2021

whedon commented Aug 5, 2021

whedon commented Aug 5, 2021

whedon commented Aug 5, 2021

arfon commented Aug 6, 2021

whedon commented Aug 6, 2021

whedon commented Aug 6, 2021

whedon commented Aug 6, 2021

arfon commented Aug 6, 2021

whedon commented Aug 6, 2021

whedon commented Jul 6, 2021 •

edited

Loading