[PRE REVIEW]: Deep-River: A Deep Learning Library for Data Streams

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @kulbachcedric (Cedric Kulbach)
Repository: https://github.com/online-ml/deep-river
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper
Version: v0.2.6
Editor: @cheginit
Reviewers: @musabgultekin, @atanikan
Managing EiC: Chris Vernon

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/6a76784f55e8b041d71a7fa776eb386a"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/6a76784f55e8b041d71a7fa776eb386a/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/6a76784f55e8b041d71a7fa776eb386a/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/6a76784f55e8b041d71a7fa776eb386a)

Author instructions

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

@kulbachcedric 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 1.90  T=0.10 s (643.0 files/s, 331554.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Markdown                         6            221              0          23668
Python                          30            561           1465           2439
CSV                              3              0              0           2103
Jupyter Notebook                13              0           1969           1145
CSS                              1             55             17            336
YAML                             5             35             15            218
HTML                             3             12             11             71
TeX                              1              0              0             58
TOML                             1              5              1             57
JSON                             1              0              0             43
JavaScript                       1              1              0             15
make                             1              5              0             12
Bourne Shell                     1              1              0              7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            67            896           3478          30172
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   401	Cedric Kulbach
    81	Lucas Cazzonelli
    34	kulbach
     4	Hoang-Anh Ngo
     2	LCa95
     2	Max Halford
     1	Lucas

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.48550/arXiv.2405.17222 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-031-26387-3_16 is OK
- 10.1016/j.knosys.2022.108632 is OK
- 10.1109/TKDE.2018.2876857 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: River: machine learning for streaming data in Pyth...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Automatic differentiation in PyTorch

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1019

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

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

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

PyDGN: a Python Library for Flexible and Reproducible Research on Deep Learning for Graphs
Submitting author: @diningphil
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @idoby, @sepandhaghighi
Similarity score: 0.7167

DeepOF: a Python package for supervised and unsupervised pattern recognition in mice motion tracking data
Submitting author: @lucasmiranda42
Handling editor: @emdupre (Active)
Reviewers: @cellistigs, @edeno
Similarity score: 0.7143

SCALAR - A Platform for Real-time Machine Learning Competitions on Data Streams
Submitting author: @nedRad88
Handling editor: @galessiorob (Active)
Reviewers: @GregaVrbancic, @atanikan, @xiaohk
Similarity score: 0.6990

OpenMSIStream: A Python package for facilitating integration of streaming data in diverse laboratory environments
Submitting author: @eminizer
Handling editor: @pibion (Retired)
Reviewers: @lucask07, @SergeyYakubov
Similarity score: 0.6954

giotto-deep: A Python Package for Topological Deep Learning
Submitting author: @matteocao
Handling editor: @osorensen (Active)
Reviewers: @EduPH, @leotrs, @ismailguzel
Similarity score: 0.6873

⚠️ 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.

[crvernon]

@editorialbot invite @cheginit as editor

👋 @cheginit - this seems like a good fit for you, can you take this one on as editor?

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[cheginit]

@crvernon Yes, I can.

[crvernon]

@editorialbot assign @cheginit as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @cheginit is now the editor

[cheginit]

@kulbachcedric, please give a list of potential reviewers. Do not include @ when providing their GitHub handles so they don't get pinged prematurely.

[kulbachcedric]

@cheginit thanks for editing!

I would suggest the following reviewers:

• eminizer (seems to be a good fit according to her libraries)
• mbdemoraes (according to his interests in machine learning in data streams) and maybe
• Karangupta1994 (also according to the interests stated within the joss reviewers
• JHoelli is also familiar with this kind of topic, however she worked with us in one group and I think it would be biased.

Again many thanks in advance and kind regards
Cedric

[cheginit]

@kulbachcedric Thanks for providing the list.

[cheginit]

👋🏼 @mbdemoraes and @eminizer, Would you like to review this submission to the Journal for Open Source Software? Our reviews are checklist-driven and openly conducted on GitHub over a timeline of 4–6 weeks. Because the process is much more iterative and interactive than a traditional paper review, we would ask you to start within the next 2 weeks. Here are reviewer guidelines for reference: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Thanks for your consideration.

[cheginit]

👋🏼 @RMeli, @xiaohk and @GregaVrbancic, Would you like to review this submission to the Journal for Open Source Software? Our reviews are checklist-driven and openly conducted on GitHub over a timeline of 4–6 weeks. Because the process is much more iterative and interactive than a traditional paper review, we would ask you to start within the next 2 weeks. Here are reviewer guidelines for reference: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Thanks for your consideration.

[cheginit]

👋🏼 @elliesc, @lucask07, and @SergeyYakubov, Would you like to review this submission to the Journal for Open Source Software? Our reviews are checklist-driven and openly conducted on GitHub over a timeline of 4–6 weeks. Because the process is much more iterative and interactive than a traditional paper review, we would ask you to start within the next 2 weeks. Here are reviewer guidelines for reference: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Thanks for your consideration.

[lucask07]

Hi @cheginit
Thank you for asking. This submission looks interesting but deviates too much from the fields I am most familiar with. I need to decline the offer to review.

[cheginit]

@lucask07 Thanks for your prompt response and letting me know about your decision.

[RMeli]

Hi @cheginit, sorry for the late reply, I was on holidays. I'm already saturated with editing for JOSS, therefore I can't take on this review.

[cheginit]

@RMeli Thanks for letting me know about your availability.

[kulbachcedric]

Hi @cheginit,
i had a short chat with @musabgultekin.
He would be interested in reviewing our JOSS paper.

Best
Cedric

[cheginit]

@kulbachcedric thanks for finding a reviewer. Please let me know if you know any other potential reviewer, since we need at least two. I will also keep looking.

@musabgultekin, would you like to review this submission to the Journal for Open Source Software? Our reviews are checklist-driven and openly conducted on GitHub over a timeline of 4–6 weeks. Because the process is much more iterative and interactive than a traditional paper review, we would ask you to start within the next 2 weeks. Here are reviewer guidelines for reference: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

[musabgultekin]

Hi @cheginit

Yes, I can review the paper for the Journal of Open Source Software.
I've built open-source machine learning project and I would love to help on this submission.
And as you informed, I can start within the next two weeks. I'll be active and I'll openly conduct the process.

[cheginit]

@editorialbot add @musabgultekin as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@musabgultekin added to the reviewers list!

[cheginit]

@editorialbot add @atanikan as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@atanikan added to the reviewers list!

[cheginit]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #7226.

[kulbachcedric]

Hi @atanikan and @musabgultekin,
are there any news regarding the review process?

Kind regards,
Cedric

[cheginit]

@kulbachcedric please use the review issue for all communications not pre-vreiw, thanks.