[PRE REVIEW]: Fusilli: A Python package for multimodal data fusion

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @florencejt (Florence J Townend)
Repository: https://github.com/florencejt/fusilli
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.2.2
Editor: @atrisovic
Reviewers: @aaronhan223, @felixkrones
Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/92b565ed179928b3362d3fc7866de80e"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/92b565ed179928b3362d3fc7866de80e/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/92b565ed179928b3362d3fc7866de80e/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/92b565ed179928b3362d3fc7866de80e)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @florencejt. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@florencejt if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

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

@editorialbot commands

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

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.23 s (848.7 files/s, 159157.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          91           4293           7380          13087
reStructuredText                79           3559           3963           1309
TeX                              1             42              0            469
Markdown                         2             82              0            199
CSS                              1             69            163            174
YAML                             4             17             26             78
TOML                             1              4              0             70
Jupyter Notebook                16              0           1841             64
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           197           8078          13381          15485
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1704

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.48550/arXiv.2203.15588 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-59713-9_24 is OK
- 10.1186/s12911-020-01340-6 is OK
- 10.3390/diagnostics12123192 is OK
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btac641 is OK
- 10.1093/jamia/ocac168 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.106113 is OK
- 10.1109/ISBI45749.2020.9098645 is OK
- 10.1007/s00432-022-04180-1 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03823 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05027 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05093 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ccell.2022.09.012 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.107413 is OK
- 10.1007/s13755-023-00231-0 is OK
- 10.32604/iasc.2023.029756 is OK
- 10.1007/s42979-021-00971-4 is OK
- 10.1002/aisy.202200213 is OK
- 10.1016/j.inffus.2019.06.019 is OK
- 10.1016/j.inffus.2022.09.025 is OK
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3140815 is OK
- 10.1016/j.neucom.2021.03.090 is OK
- 10.1162/neco_a_01273 is OK
- 10.1093/bib/bbab569 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-031-43993-3_19 may be a valid DOI for title: Multimodal brain age estimation using interpretable adaptive population-graph learning

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

Visualization of Multi-Dimensional Data -- The data-slicer Package
Submitting author: @kuadrat
Handling editor: @timtroendle (Active)
Reviewers: @sabinomaggi, @Chilipp
Similarity score: 0.8219

datafold: data-driven models for point clouds and time series on manifolds
Submitting author: @eldan101
Handling editor: @dfm (Active)
Reviewers: @jsgalan, @mtezzele
Similarity score: 0.8190

Multiple Inference: A Python package for comparing multiple parameters
Submitting author: @dsbowen
Handling editor: @vissarion (Active)
Reviewers: @blakeaw, @mattpitkin, @nhejazi
Similarity score: 0.8164

fuse: An R package for ensemble Hydrological Modelling
Submitting author: @cvitolo
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @masalmon
Similarity score: 0.8162

flowTorch - a Python library for analysis and reduced-order modeling of fluid flows
Submitting author: @AndreWeiner
Handling editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman (Active)
Reviewers: @akaptano, @JaroslavHron, @salrm8, @hkjeldsberg
Similarity score: 0.8135

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[arfon]

@florencejt - thanks for your submission to JOSS. We're currently managing a large backlog of submissions and the editor most appropriate for your area is already rather busy.

For now, we will need to waitlist this paper and process it as the queue reduces. Thanks for your patience!

[florencejt]

Hi @arfon, thank you for letting me know!
I have one question about the submission/review process: is it permitted to release new tagged versions of the software during the JOSS process or is it best to wait until the whole process is completed before tinkering?

[arfon]

Good question. Ideally we want the software to be stable during the review so reviewers don't have a 'moving target'.

[arfon]

You're welcome to change things right now though as the review hasn't actually started.

[florencejt]

Alright thank you for clarifying, that makes sense.

[atrisovic]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @atrisovic is now the editor

[atrisovic]

Hi @florencejt I will be your editor and do my best to help with the review. If you have any suggestions for potential reviewers, please let me know here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). I will start contacting reviewers over email and hopefully we can start with the review soon.

[florencejt]

Hi @atrisovic, I'll have a think on the potential reviewers and come back to you on that soon. Thanks!

[atrisovic]

@editorialbot add @aaronhan223 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@aaronhan223 added to the reviewers list!

[atrisovic]

@editorialbot add @felixkrones as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@felixkrones added to the reviewers list!

[atrisovic]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6414.