[REVIEW]: Eaglescope: an interactive visualization and cohort selection tool for biomedical data exploration. #6837

editorialbot · 2024-06-04T12:38:45Z

Submitting author: @birm (Ryan Birmingham)
Repository: https://github.com/sharmalab/eaglescope
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 1.1.1
Editor: @csoneson
Reviewers: @flekschas, @sebastian-raubach
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.14040758

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/229f0d11e01fb7316ef9da35d9e466ae"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/229f0d11e01fb7316ef9da35d9e466ae/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/229f0d11e01fb7316ef9da35d9e466ae/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/229f0d11e01fb7316ef9da35d9e466ae)

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

@flekschas & @sebastian-raubach, 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 @csoneson 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 @sebastian-raubach

📝 Checklist for @flekschas

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

editorialbot · 2024-06-04T12:38:47Z

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 · 2024-06-04T12:39:12Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1126/scisignal.2004088 is OK
- 10.1109/VAHC.2017.8387496 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-020-60981-9 is OK
- 10.1007/s10278-013-9622-7 is OK
- 10.1200/cci.20.00001 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Bokeh: an interactive visualization library for mo...

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-06-04T12:39:18Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=1.05 s (1707.1 files/s, 238183.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JavaScript                     101           6938          22483         133168
SVG                           1567              0             24          24921
JSON                            15              3              0          23135
CSS                             44           4888            551          21120
Sass                            19            519             34           4755
LESS                            18            504             55           4636
HTML                             8             69             53            673
CSV                              1              0              0            302
Markdown                         5             33              0            151
YAML                             5             15              4             79
TeX                              1              5              0             50
Dockerfile                       1              3              0             15
Bourne Shell                     1              0              0              3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                          1786          12977          23204         213008
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   143	Ryan Birmingham
    36	Birm
    19	Yahia Zakaria
    17	Nan Li
     9	Jasox NaN
     7	Mohamed Nasser
     3	nanli-emory
     1	ArthurMor4is
     1	Pranav
     1	dependabot[bot]

editorialbot · 2024-06-04T12:39:23Z

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 522

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot · 2024-06-04T12:39:27Z

License info:

✅ License found: BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

editorialbot · 2024-06-04T12:40:10Z

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

csoneson · 2024-06-04T12:40:48Z

👋🏼 @birm, @flekschas, @sebastian-raubach - this is the review thread for the submission. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

As a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering

@editorialbot generate my checklist

as the top of a new comment in this thread. These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains 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 directly in the software repository. If you do so, please mention this thread so that a link is created (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions in this thread. It is often easier to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if any of you require some more time. We can also use EditorialBot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@csoneson) if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks!

sebastian-raubach · 2024-06-04T12:44:05Z

Review checklist for @sebastian-raubach

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/sharmalab/eaglescope?
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 (@birm) 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?

sebastian-raubach · 2024-06-04T12:58:16Z

@birm Would you be able to clarify the author contribution for me please? Looking at the contribution graphs (https://github.com/sharmalab/eaglescope/graphs/contributors) I can see major code contributions from yourself, Nan Li (with two separate accounts?) and Yahia Zakaria. I can, however, not identify Tony Pan's contribution. Additionally, there are smaller code contributions from other individuals who aren't included in the author list.

If you could shine some light on those two items, that'd be great.

@csoneson As this is my first JOSS review, could you let me know if questions of this nature are best posted on this thread or (as the initial comment suggests) on the software's main repository?

Cheers.

csoneson · 2024-06-04T13:05:43Z

Hi @sebastian-raubach - I'd say that this type of question, which is not strictly related to the functionality or implementation of the software, but rather to the JOSS submission, are better posed in this thread. But there is no strict boundary, and as long as you mention the issues posted in the software repository here, we can keep track of them.

Also, in case it's useful re: your question above, here is a link to the JOSS authorship policy.

sebastian-raubach · 2024-06-04T13:31:24Z

Added an issue asking about documentation of the tool sharmalab/eaglescope#118

birm · 2024-06-06T21:26:46Z

@birm Would you be able to clarify the author contribution for me please? Looking at the contribution graphs (https://github.com/sharmalab/eaglescope/graphs/contributors) I can see major code contributions from yourself, Nan Li (with two separate accounts?) and Yahia Zakaria. I can, however, not identify Tony Pan's contribution. Additionally, there are smaller code contributions from other individuals who aren't included in the author list.

If you could shine some light on those two items, that'd be great.

@csoneson As this is my first JOSS review, could you let me know if questions of this nature are best posted on this thread or (as the initial comment suggests) on the software's main repository?

Cheers.

I don't know why Nan used two different accounts, but that's accurate.
Tony Pan is involved with the Eaglescope project in an advisory capacity, especially future planning.

sebastian-raubach · 2024-06-07T09:28:11Z

@csoneson I noticed this section on web-applications in the JOSS guidelines and I'm not convinced this tool fulfils either of the two requirements. Having said that, just because they used web-technologies, this doesn't necessarily make it a web-application as it doesn't need to be hosted on the web somewhere, you can just run it locally. So I'm a bit unsure about how to proceed. This is further complicated by the fact that I cannot see any form of automated testing in place for this tool which is one of the other checkboxes to tick in the list.

@birm would you be able to confirm whether or not there are automated tests for Eaglescope?

birm · 2024-06-07T15:23:43Z

The automated tests exist but are currently quite basic (triggered https://github.com/sharmalab/eaglescope/blob/main/.github/workflows/smoke_test.yml, which currently just checks if the code builds properly, and there's also a code style check.

flekschas · 2024-06-11T19:52:50Z

Review checklist for @flekschas

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/sharmalab/eaglescope?
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 (@birm) 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?

birm · 2024-06-11T22:53:26Z

Just to update everyone, I'm still working on addressing the comments/issues from @sebastian-raubach but have not had much time lately. I haven't fallen asleep on these suggestions.

flekschas · 2024-06-12T00:32:11Z

Thanks for putting together this tool @birm. It looks really promising! However, I have several remarks:

While the README.md contains instructions how to set up the development environment. I can't seem to find many details explaining how to configure the dashboard. And according to https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1zvXCeV-a8k4VercXsgFPTHqml7QwmDDu9snz6dhqIC4/edit#slide=id.g106c66ac588_0_3 the specification file can be quite complex. Moreover, the paper claims that one can "create an interactive dashboard based upon a configuration file and either an API or data file". How is one supposed to do the later? Unless I'm missing something, the README.md does speak to any of that. So at the moment I can't tick Example usage as I really don't know how to set up the tool myself.
Similarly, while the repo contains a live demo, it's somewhat unclear to me what all the visualizations do and how they work together to solve some scientific questions. The video gets at that to some degree but it's a) 3 years old and b) only one minute long (and hence doesn't really cover much). There needs to be a bit more for me to check Functionality documentation
As far as I can tell, there are no tests of any kind
There are also no community guidelines
While the authors provide a statement of need, the paper is currently lacking a section on how it compares to other charting libraries. (Hence I cannot check State of the field) Part of the issue here is also that I'm not clear on what the exact scope of this tool is. In the very first sentence the authors say "... and cohort selection tool designed for biomedical data exploration" and it appears as if this tool is designed to visualize cohort data. But later on cohort data is not mentioned anymore and instead the authors talk about "exploring large biomedical datasets". Unfortunately I don't believe that this tool works with all kinds of biomedical. In particular, I doubt that the tool supports large datasets given that we're talking about a static HTML web app that uses SVG for rendering. (One cannot render millions or billions of data points with SVG as are commonly found in genomics or single-cell biology.) I'm not bringing this up to say the tool isn't useful but I think the paper needs to be revised to be more specific as to what types of biomedical data are actually supported. Having done that it should also be easy to relate the tool to all the other biomedical visualization tools that are out there. (Speaking from the downloaded wine dataset, my current assumption is that this tool can explore small tabular data. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise but the working demos all point to small datasets.)

In summary, this truly looks like a neat tool but it (primarily) needs documentation and the exact use case its supports should be worked out more in the paper.

PS: After digging around in the code I found out how one can change the config. The wine, demo, and collection-vis configs work but it seems that clinical-vis-config.json and vis-config.json are broken (I only see a loading spinner). It's odd though to require an end-user to dig into the source code to specify the default config that's being loaded.

birm · 2024-06-12T21:04:48Z

We've added community guidelines, improved the documentation, and added (slightly) better testing for eaglescope.

I think we still need to address points 2 and 5 @flekschas

csoneson · 2024-06-13T16:36:12Z

@csoneson I noticed this section on web-applications in the JOSS guidelines and I'm not convinced this tool fulfils either of the two requirements. Having said that, just because they used web-technologies, this doesn't necessarily make it a web-application as it doesn't need to be hosted on the web somewhere, you can just run it locally. So I'm a bit unsure about how to proceed. This is further complicated by the fact that I cannot see any form of automated testing in place for this tool which is one of the other checkboxes to tick in the list.

@sebastian-raubach thanks for your comment and sorry for the delayed response, I was out of office for a few days. We have discussed it in the editor team and we do feel that this is technically in scope - however, as you (and @flekschas) have pointed out, implementing sufficient testing to be able to catch unexpected behaviour in a way that is as automated and comprehensive as possible will be essential.

@birm - I would also suggest providing direct links to tests, contribution guidelines and similar in the README, so that they are easy to find.

birm · 2024-06-21T15:09:17Z

I've added some more links/instructions to the readme! Thank you for the continued suggestions!

birm · 2024-06-27T16:11:51Z

@flekschas

5. don't believe that this tool works with all kinds of biomedical. In particular, I doubt that the tool supports large datasets given that we're talking about a static HTML web app that uses SVG for rendering.

I think this is fair. We're more interested in the flexibility of deployment than we are about optimizing for large data in the current form. Larger scale data via a series of data summary APIs has been on our roadmap for a but, but we have not yet taken much action to make this happen. I've changed the paper writeup to focus a little more on the tabular/cohort than claiming "large".

csoneson · 2024-07-01T14:42:08Z

👋🏻 Just wanted to check in to see where things are at here. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!

sebastian-raubach · 2024-07-01T14:51:28Z

👋🏻 Just wanted to check in to see where things are at here. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!

Hi Charlotte, for me things are kind of stuck on the automated testing criterion. I can see that there has been a little work done on that front but ultimately, only the smoke test (does it even compile and run?) and some very limited other test (does it show the correct page title and show one visualization element) are included. There are no tests that look into the functionality of the application, e.g. is the input data loaded correctly? does the filtering work? are interactions with the charts working as expected? is the exported configuration correct? None of these are covered.

Since you mentioned in one of your earlier replies the editorial team wanted to ensure that things like this are covered, which at this point they aren't.

There is also more that could be done on the documentation front. I am happy to see that the format and structure of the configuration files has been added as documentation, but there is no user-facing documentation when it comes to the use of the interface.

Finally, there is no "state of the field" section to speak of where the tool would be compared and evaluated against other tools in the area.

birm · 2024-11-04T03:02:05Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-11-04T03:03:44Z

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

birm · 2024-11-04T03:11:33Z

And once more to fix the corresponding author:

birm · 2024-11-04T03:12:02Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-11-04T03:14:01Z

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

csoneson · 2024-11-05T07:52:12Z

Thank you @birm! For the Zenodo archive, could you link it directly to the GitHub repository (see here), so that all the files are visible in the archive as well (not just the compressed repo)? Also, please make sure that the title and author list of the archive agree with those of the paper. Thanks!

birm · 2024-11-05T14:45:18Z

Ok, it went and made a new DOI at https://zenodo.org/records/14040758

csoneson · 2024-11-05T20:22:43Z

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.14040758 as archive

editorialbot · 2024-11-05T20:22:46Z

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.14040758

csoneson · 2024-11-05T20:23:08Z

@editorialbot set 1.1.1 as version

editorialbot · 2024-11-05T20:23:10Z

Done! version is now 1.1.1

csoneson · 2024-11-05T20:25:05Z

Great, thanks @birm! Final detail: could you swap the order of the authors in the Zenodo archive to agree with the order in the paper? In the meanwhile I will pass the submission to the Associate EiC for the final steps.

csoneson · 2024-11-05T20:25:09Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-11-05T20:25:12Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-11-05T20:25:38Z

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1126/scisignal.2004088 is OK
- 10.1109/VAHC.2017.8387496 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-020-60981-9 is OK
- 10.1007/s10278-013-9622-7 is OK
- 10.1200/cci.20.00001 is OK
- 10.1093/jamia/ocy178 is OK
- 10.1111/aogs.13319 is OK
- 10.1055/s-0039-1687862 is OK
- 10.1177/1473871614526077 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4939-3578-9_5 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Bokeh: An Interactive Visualization Library for Mo...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-11-05T20:26:59Z

👋 @openjournals/bcm-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#6091, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-11-15T08:49:41Z

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-11-15T08:50:17Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2024-11-15T08:50:19Z

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

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-11-15T08:51:58Z

@birm one this I could not see is contributing guidelines. Can you point me to them or can you add them if missing? (see here for some examples: https://contributing.md/example/).

editorialbot · 2024-11-15T08:58:00Z

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: Birmingham
  given-names: Ryan
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7943-6346"
- family-names: Li
  given-names: Nan
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3975-4809"
- family-names: Pan
  given-names: Tony
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7945-6534"
- family-names: Zakaria
  given-names: Yahia
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0001-0705-4082"
contact:
- family-names: Birmingham
  given-names: Ryan
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7943-6346"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14040758
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Birmingham
    given-names: Ryan
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7943-6346"
  - family-names: Li
    given-names: Nan
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3975-4809"
  - family-names: Pan
    given-names: Tony
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7945-6534"
  - family-names: Zakaria
    given-names: Yahia
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0001-0705-4082"
  date-published: 2024-11-15
  doi: 10.21105/joss.06837
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 103
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 6837
  title: "Eaglescope: an interactive visualization and cohort selection
    tool for biomedical data exploration."
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06837"
  volume: 9
title: "Eaglescope: an interactive visualization and cohort selection
  tool for biomedical data exploration."

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 · 2024-11-15T08:58:05Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2024-11-15T08:58:06Z

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

editorialbot · 2024-11-15T08:58:07Z

🚨🚨🚨 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.06837 joss-papers#6144
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06837
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-11-18T16:16:42Z

@birm congratulations on this JOSS publication!

Thanks for editing @csoneson !

And a special thank you to the reviewers: @flekschas, @sebastian-raubach !!

editorialbot · 2024-11-18T16:16:45Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.06837/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06837)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06837">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06837/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06837/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06837

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-joss

editorialbot added CSS HTML JavaScript review Track: 2 (BCM) Biomedical Engineering, Biosciences, Chemistry, and Materials labels Jun 4, 2024

editorialbot assigned csoneson Jun 4, 2024

editorialbot mentioned this issue Jun 4, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: Eaglescope: an interactive visualization and cohort selection tool for biomedical data exploration. #6700

Closed

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Nov 5, 2024

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Nov 15, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman closed this as completed Nov 18, 2024

[REVIEW]: Eaglescope: an interactive visualization and cohort selection tool for biomedical data exploration. #6837

[REVIEW]: Eaglescope: an interactive visualization and cohort selection tool for biomedical data exploration. #6837

Comments

editorialbot commented Jun 4, 2024 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Jun 4, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 4, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 4, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 4, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 4, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 4, 2024

csoneson commented Jun 4, 2024

sebastian-raubach commented Jun 4, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @sebastian-raubach

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

sebastian-raubach commented Jun 4, 2024

csoneson commented Jun 4, 2024

sebastian-raubach commented Jun 4, 2024

birm commented Jun 6, 2024

sebastian-raubach commented Jun 7, 2024

birm commented Jun 7, 2024

flekschas commented Jun 11, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @flekschas

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

birm commented Jun 11, 2024

flekschas commented Jun 12, 2024

birm commented Jun 12, 2024

csoneson commented Jun 13, 2024 • edited Loading

birm commented Jun 21, 2024

birm commented Jun 27, 2024

csoneson commented Jul 1, 2024

sebastian-raubach commented Jul 1, 2024

birm commented Nov 4, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 4, 2024

birm commented Nov 4, 2024 • edited Loading

birm commented Nov 4, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 4, 2024

csoneson commented Nov 5, 2024

birm commented Nov 5, 2024

csoneson commented Nov 5, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 5, 2024

csoneson commented Nov 5, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 5, 2024

csoneson commented Nov 5, 2024

csoneson commented Nov 5, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 5, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 5, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 5, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Nov 15, 2024 • edited Loading

Checks on repository

Checks on review issue

Checks on archive

Checks on paper

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Nov 15, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 15, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Nov 15, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 15, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 15, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 15, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 15, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Nov 18, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 18, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 4, 2024 •

edited

Loading

sebastian-raubach commented Jun 4, 2024 •

edited

Loading

flekschas commented Jun 11, 2024 •

edited

Loading

csoneson commented Jun 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading

birm commented Nov 4, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Nov 15, 2024 •

edited

Loading