[REVIEW]: Omnizart: A General Toolbox for Automatic Music Transcription #3391

whedon · 2021-06-21T21:00:31Z

Submitting author: @BreezeWhite (Yu Te Wu)
Repository: https://github.com/Music-and-Culture-Technology-Lab/omnizart
Version: v0.5.0
Editor: @faroit
Reviewer: @hagenw, @keunwoochoi
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5769022

⚠️ 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/3868f7d40bdf1e8ee77f3caa66791c92"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3868f7d40bdf1e8ee77f3caa66791c92/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3868f7d40bdf1e8ee77f3caa66791c92/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3868f7d40bdf1e8ee77f3caa66791c92)

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

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

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

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

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Review checklist for @hagenw

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 (@BreezeWhite) 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 @keunwoochoi

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 (@BreezeWhite) 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 · 2021-06-21T21:00:35Z

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @hagenw, @keunwoochoi 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 · 2021-06-21T21:00:53Z

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.32 s (586.1 files/s, 176635.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAML                            27             32             14          29650
Python                         111           2555           2981           8816
JavaScript                       3           1604           1860           6244
reStructuredText                25            432            344            587
HTML                             5             55              0            429
Markdown                         5            168              0            412
TeX                              2             30              0            264
CSS                              2             56              1            241
Bourne Shell                     4             48             30            166
TOML                             1              7              0             59
make                             2             23             17             56
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
JSON                             1              0              0             26
Dockerfile                       1              6              1             16
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           190           5024           5249          46992
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Statistical information for the repository 'ddba99c9d905a23824260953' was
gathered on 2021/06/21.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
BreezeWhite                    267         19646           5818           66.32
Derek-Wu                         3             5              5            0.03
Yin-Jyun Luo                     4            79             74            0.40
unknown                         19         10147            230           27.02
yjluo                           19          1582            812            6.23

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

Author                     Rows      Stability          Age       % in comments
BreezeWhite               13450           68.5          6.3                6.22
Yin-Jyun Luo                 60           75.9          5.8               15.00
unknown                   10085           99.4          3.1               18.55
yjluo                       465           29.4          6.4                4.73

whedon · 2021-06-21T21:01:03Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/taslp.2020.3030482 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-01234-2_49 is OK
- 10.1109/taslp.2015.2442411 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp39728.2021.9414409 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2018.8462079 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2018.8462420 is OK
- 10.1109/access.2019.2960566 is OK
- 10.1109/tpami.2018.2858821 is OK
- 10.1109/tasl.2009.2026503 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2018.8461686 is OK
- 10.25080/majora-7b98e3ed-003 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon · 2021-06-21T21:01:05Z

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

faroit · 2021-06-21T21:03:24Z

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

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

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention #3391 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

whedon · 2021-07-05T21:00:41Z

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

whedon · 2021-07-05T21:00:41Z

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

hagenw · 2021-07-06T09:29:38Z

I will submit mine tomorrow.

faroit · 2021-07-06T09:53:58Z

I will submit mine tomorrow.

Great. thanks! As mentioned above, a way is to split comments/concerns into smaller issues that can more easily be approached by the authors.

hagenw · 2021-07-07T15:00:52Z

I cannot fill out the bullet points as the invitation under https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations has expired.

danielskatz · 2021-07-07T15:01:37Z

@whedon re-invite @hagenw as reviewer

whedon · 2021-07-07T15:01:50Z

OK, the reviewer has been re-invited.

@hagenw please accept the invite by clicking this link: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

keunwoochoi · 2021-07-12T04:37:15Z

@danielskatz can you also invite me again? thanks!

faroit · 2021-12-09T07:33:54Z

@BreezeWhite the archive (zenodo) looks good. Please have a look at Music-and-Culture-Technology-Lab/omnizart#49 again before we can proceed with the final accept of this paper.

faroit · 2021-12-09T07:34:26Z

@whedon set v0.5.0 as version

whedon · 2021-12-09T07:34:30Z

OK. v0.5.0 is the version.

faroit · 2021-12-09T07:35:15Z

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.5769022 as archive

whedon · 2021-12-09T07:35:18Z

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.5769022 is the archive.

faroit · 2021-12-09T10:26:54Z

@whedon check references

faroit · 2021-12-09T10:27:16Z

@whedon generate pdf

whedon · 2021-12-09T10:28:07Z

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

faroit · 2021-12-09T10:30:17Z

@BreezeWhite all good from my side

faroit · 2021-12-09T10:30:52Z

@whedon recommend-accept

whedon · 2021-12-09T10:30:55Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon · 2021-12-09T10:31:48Z

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

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#2803

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#2803, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon · 2021-12-09T10:31:49Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/taslp.2020.3030482 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-01234-2_49 is OK
- 10.1109/taslp.2015.2442411 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp39728.2021.9414409 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2018.8462079 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2018.8462420 is OK
- 10.1109/access.2019.2960566 is OK
- 10.1109/TPAMI.2018.2858821 is OK
- 10.1109/tasl.2009.2026503 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2018.8461686 is OK
- 10.1145/2964284.2973795 is OK
- 10.25080/majora-7b98e3ed-003 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon · 2021-12-09T10:38:16Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/taslp.2020.3030482 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-01234-2_49 is OK
- 10.1109/taslp.2015.2442411 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp39728.2021.9414409 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2018.8462079 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2018.8462420 is OK
- 10.1109/access.2019.2960566 is OK
- 10.1109/TPAMI.2018.2858821 is OK
- 10.1109/tasl.2009.2026503 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2018.8461686 is OK
- 10.1145/2964284.2973795 is OK
- 10.25080/majora-7b98e3ed-003 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

danielskatz · 2021-12-09T15:31:21Z

@BreezeWhite - I'm the AEiC who will accept and publish this, and while proofreading, I found a number of issues, addressed in Music-and-Culture-Technology-Lab/omnizart#50 - please merge this, or let me know what you disagree with, then we can proceed.

BreezeWhite · 2021-12-10T01:40:42Z

@danielskatz thanks for the proofreading, I've merged the pull request.

danielskatz · 2021-12-10T01:49:06Z

@whedon recommend-accept

whedon · 2021-12-10T01:49:09Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon · 2021-12-10T01:49:42Z

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

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#2807

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#2807, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon · 2021-12-10T01:51:11Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/taslp.2020.3030482 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-01234-2_49 is OK
- 10.1109/taslp.2015.2442411 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp39728.2021.9414409 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2018.8462079 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2018.8462420 is OK
- 10.1109/access.2019.2960566 is OK
- 10.1109/TPAMI.2018.2858821 is OK
- 10.1109/tasl.2009.2026503 is OK
- 10.1109/icassp.2018.8461686 is OK
- 10.1145/2964284.2973795 is OK
- 10.25080/majora-7b98e3ed-003 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

danielskatz · 2021-12-10T01:51:20Z

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon · 2021-12-10T01:51:23Z

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

whedon · 2021-12-10T01:52:14Z

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

whedon · 2021-12-10T01:52:15Z

🚨🚨🚨 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.03391 joss-papers#2808
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03391
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

danielskatz · 2021-12-10T01:58:12Z

Congratulations to @BreezeWhite (Yu Te Wu) and co-authors!!

And thanks to @hagenw and @keunwoochoi for reviewing, and @faroit for editing!
We couldn't do this without you

whedon · 2021-12-10T01:58:15Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.03391/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03391)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03391">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03391/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03391/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03391

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 Makefile Python review TeX labels Jun 21, 2021

whedon assigned faroit Jun 21, 2021

whedon mentioned this issue Jun 21, 2021

[PRE REVIEW]: Omnizart: A General Toolbox for Automatic Music Transcription #3218

Closed

This was referenced Jun 21, 2021

My comments on paper.md Music-and-Culture-Technology-Lab/omnizart#25

Closed

Installation issues on MacOS Music-and-Culture-Technology-Lab/omnizart#26

Closed

whedon assigned hagenw Jul 7, 2021

whedon assigned keunwoochoi Jul 13, 2021

hagenw mentioned this issue Jul 22, 2021

pyfluidsynth is missing when running omnizart synth Music-and-Culture-Technology-Lab/omnizart#35

Closed

whedon added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Dec 9, 2021

whedon added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Dec 10, 2021

danielskatz closed this as completed Dec 10, 2021

[REVIEW]: Omnizart: A General Toolbox for Automatic Music Transcription #3391

[REVIEW]: Omnizart: A General Toolbox for Automatic Music Transcription #3391

Comments

whedon commented Jun 21, 2021 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Review checklist for @hagenw

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @keunwoochoi

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

whedon commented Jun 21, 2021

whedon commented Jun 21, 2021

whedon commented Jun 21, 2021

whedon commented Jun 21, 2021

faroit commented Jun 21, 2021

whedon commented Jul 5, 2021

whedon commented Jul 5, 2021

hagenw commented Jul 6, 2021

faroit commented Jul 6, 2021

hagenw commented Jul 7, 2021

danielskatz commented Jul 7, 2021

whedon commented Jul 7, 2021

keunwoochoi commented Jul 12, 2021

faroit commented Dec 9, 2021

faroit commented Dec 9, 2021

whedon commented Dec 9, 2021

faroit commented Dec 9, 2021

whedon commented Dec 9, 2021

faroit commented Dec 9, 2021

faroit commented Dec 9, 2021

whedon commented Dec 9, 2021

faroit commented Dec 9, 2021

faroit commented Dec 9, 2021

whedon commented Dec 9, 2021

whedon commented Dec 9, 2021

whedon commented Dec 9, 2021

whedon commented Dec 9, 2021

danielskatz commented Dec 9, 2021

BreezeWhite commented Dec 10, 2021

danielskatz commented Dec 10, 2021

whedon commented Dec 10, 2021

whedon commented Dec 10, 2021

whedon commented Dec 10, 2021

danielskatz commented Dec 10, 2021

whedon commented Dec 10, 2021

whedon commented Dec 10, 2021

whedon commented Dec 10, 2021

danielskatz commented Dec 10, 2021 • edited Loading

whedon commented Dec 10, 2021

whedon commented Jun 21, 2021 •

edited

Loading

danielskatz commented Dec 10, 2021 •

edited

Loading