[REVIEW]: JeFaPaTo - A joint toolbox for blinking analysis and facial features extraction

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @Timozen (Tim Büchner)
Repository: https://github.com/cvjena/JeFaPaTo
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.1.0
Editor: @samhforbes
Reviewers: @mprib, @draabe
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.11085954

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8fd283f5c937564b15d7e228bfeb522e"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8fd283f5c937564b15d7e228bfeb522e/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8fd283f5c937564b15d7e228bfeb522e/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8fd283f5c937564b15d7e228bfeb522e)

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

@mprib & @draabe, 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 @samhforbes 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 @mprib

📝 Checklist for @draabe

[editorialbot]

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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.30 s (231.0 files/s, 137756.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XML                              1             11             32          33271
Python                          46           1340            937           4221
Markdown                         5            127              0            387
SVG                              5              5              5            321
Bourne Shell                     6             35             38            169
TeX                              1             10              0             96
YAML                             3             17             23             77
TOML                             1              3              0             10
DOS Batch                        1              0              0              6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            69           1548           1035          38558
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 3070

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.48550/arXiv.1906.08172 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1907.06724 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/TSMC.1979.4310076 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[mprib]

Review checklist for @mprib

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/cvjena/JeFaPaTo?
• 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 (@Timozen) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
  • Author Contributions cvjena/JeFaPaTo#2
• 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?
  • Trouble running on Ubuntu 22.04 cvjena/JeFaPaTo#3
  • Blink Extraction Hangs cvjena/JeFaPaTo#4
• 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)?
  • checking this off as I'm not sure API usage is really in the intended scope and I expect that an example walkthrough would document the GUI functionality.
• 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

• 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?
• Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
  • Manuscript notes cvjena/JeFaPaTo#5
• Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
  • Manuscript notes cvjena/JeFaPaTo#5
• 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?

[draabe]

Review checklist for @draabe

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/cvjena/JeFaPaTo?
• 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 (@Timozen) 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 (cf. cvjena/JeFaPaTo#10 )

• 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?

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@mprib, @draabe thanks for your help here. I was wondering if you could provide an update on review progress. Are there any key points the authors should work on? Thanks again for your help!

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@samhforbes thanks for editing. It would be great if you could check in about once a week to help spur on this review.

[mprib]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman,

I've opened up a couple issues and it's my understanding the primary author is traveling out of country at the moment so things are in a bit of stasis. I had trouble confirming functionality of the package when installing the binaries on Ubuntu, so I'm going to attempt to run just from cloning the repo and see how that goes.

I should be able to complete comments on Documentation and Software Paper in the coming week.

Regards,

Mac

[draabe]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman on it this week

[samhforbes]

Hi @Timozen I can see you're back and working on this - let us know if there are any action points that are unclear, @mprib has opened some excellent issues.
@draabe please feel free to open additional issues in the software repository if the current issues don't cover your points.

[Timozen]

Yes, indeed ^^ I am now fully back in the office after dealing with German bureaucracy.

I have already started to investigate some of the unwanted software behavior and shipped some fixes in the development branch.
However, I will ping both reviewers once there is a new stable version in the main branch!

I already really highly appreciate the work put into it :)

[draabe]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[draabe]

Hi @Timozen & @samhforbes ,

I've completed the first round of review and would like to give a brief general summary. First, congrats to the author's for creating this great piece of software! It is feature-rich and has a lean and easy-to-use GUI. Installation works fine, and it runs smoothly on my mid-end machine. The paper is well-written but could be improved slightly (cvjena/JeFaPaTo#10).

However, I do have one major concern regarding package documentation. If I haven't missed anything, there seems to be no standalone documentation, such as a hosted documentation, a user manual or else. Instead, the documentation is somewhat scattered between the repository's README.md, CONTRIBUTING.md and several paragraphs of the software paper. It should be noted that this package is focusing on it's GUI aimed at a non-technical audience instead of providing a low-level API/CLI (again, @Timozen , please correct me if I've misinterpreted that). So, extensive API documentation is not really required. I still had considerable difficulty to navigating through the graphical interfaces, understanding the basic mechanisms, and there is not really a single document to get help from. Instead, I've found myself switching back and forth between the repository, the GUI and the software paper until I figured my way through it.

I'd personally suggest to create a standalone documentation for the package (leaving the choice of format to the authors), including a thorough functionality documentation, feature/output description and usage examples/walkthroughs. I think this will greatly benefit the usability and especially help the non-technical target audience adapting it into their workflows (speaking of experience here). A lot of material is already available, so this should leave the authors not starting from scratch, and I'm happy to provide more detailed feedback in an issue if that helps.

However, I'd politely ask you @samhforbes to weigh in on this matter. I'm a bit unsure if such a standalone documentation is required by JOSS standards (or if requirements can also be satisfied from within the software paper and README.md), and what best practices are with respect to documenting an API that is actually a GUI.

Thanks, @draabe

[Timozen]

Thank you once again for this valuable feedback! We included the input of @draabe, and a new version is available at the main branch.

I agree that external documentation would be helpful, and we and some medical project partners have planned it.
Regarding the JOSS standards, we would also appreciate some comments from @samhforbes on how relevant this usage documentation is.

[samhforbes]

Hi @Timozen and @draabe thanks for this discussion.
There are two considerations here. One is the community standards, so something like the python packaging guidelines are relevant to ensure best practice.
I think given the package is aimed at ease of use, some sort of vignette or documentation on how to follow this through with a sample dataset - so that a new user can pick up the package and run with it is reasonable to request to satisfy the example useage tickbox.
In my opinion this doesn't need to be overly long, and could be something you continue to add to in the future.
Does that make sense in terms of how to proceed? The details of it are up to your discretion, but a quick guide would help ease of use.

[draabe]

Hi @Timozen & @samhforbes ,

thanks for the quick replies - both made sense to me and clarified the matter.

In terms of community standards, I believe that project structure (packaging, installation, testing) together with repository documentation (readme, installation, contributing) are largely in place to ensure best practices and help users/contributors to navigate around the project. In terms of usage documentation, I agree with @samhforbes in that some sort of vignette/documentation/manual should accompany the package.

@Timozen, since you are planning the latter anyway, maybe an option would be to start with a minimal version of such a documentation as part of this review, which you could then extend in the future? If you want, I can also share my UX and some of the points I found a little more difficult to understand in a separate issue.

[Timozen]

To both of you, @samhforbes and @draabe, thanks a lot!

I will leverage the GitHub wiki function to create a small documentation tutorial as a first point of action. Continuous updates will be done there :)
You can find it here: https://github.com/cvjena/JeFaPaTo/wiki/Tutorial

I will create the content stepwise to include a simple workflow other people can follow and use. I would also appreciate it if you @draabe could share your UX in this issue: cvjena/JeFaPaTo#12
That would help me a lot to understand how your interaction was ^^

Once the tutorial documentation is satisfactory, I will let you know again!

[mprib]

Thank you to @draabe for the suggestions regarding consolidated documentation. I also found myself hunting around for information in different places and think a central guide would be a useful addition. I'm holding off for now and will check back in when @Timozen notes that the tutorial is ready for review.

One note for @Timozen because it may relate to the tutorial or at least the installation instructions. I'm still on Windows 10 and found everything worked with ease just cloning, creating a standard venv with python3.10, using pip install requirements.txt, then running main.py. This feels simpler to me than also dealing with conda, but I realize that is a matter of personal preference. Just wanted to point out one path that worked in a straightforward manner on a platform that is not specifically catered to in the Stable Releases.

[Timozen]

Hey everyone, @samhforbes, @draabe and @mprib,

I took all your recommendations to heart and created a more user-friendly documentary with the wiki functionality from GitHub.
You can find it here.

I added the following things there:

• Updated installation guide (moved the INSTALL.md into its page there) and added an entry using venv :^)
• Added two tutorials, one for EAR score extraction and one for the blink extraction
• I added more general information about the models and methods used inside of JeFaPaTo based on the ideas and feedback @draabe gave in this issue here
• I added more EAR score examples and a more extended test video in the examples folder of the repo
• I cleaned up the readme.md to address the changes

Also, minor changes to the software itself:

• JeFaPaTo now has a slight help menu bar at the top, which contains information about About, License, Documentation, and Acknowledgement.
• Also, the Eye Blinking Extraction GUI now has more help buttons to guide the user through setting the algorithm parameters.
• Due to the issues @mprib had during his extraction, I added more error handling and increased how errors are communicated with the user. This should be, in general, more helpful to distinguish usage and coding errors.

I pushed these changes to the main branch of the repository and I would appreciate if you can check the wiki itself.

Currently, the only thing remaining is building the precompiled binaries for Windows and the different MacOS versions.
This still has to be done by hand by me, so I need access to these machines in our group ^^ So, it is likely these will be added in the upcoming days.
I will also try to automate the building by using GitHub automatizations, but I don't have any experience using these build tools in that manner ^^

[Timozen]

I have created the binary version of JeFaPaTo now. Only the old Mac Intel version is missing, but I need an old Mac, which a colleague will bring to the office soon.

[editorialbot]

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.11085954

[editorialbot]

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

[samhforbes]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.48550/arXiv.1907.06724 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/TSMC.1979.4310076 is OK
- 10.1098/rsif.2013.0227 is OK
- 10.1167/iovs.06-0499 is OK
- 10.1007/s00702-021-02391-3 is OK
- 10.1007/s00405-016-4018-1 is OK
- 10.1109/TNSRE.2019.2961244 is OK
- 10.3390/diagnostics13030554 is OK
- 10.2196/32444 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Real-Time Eye Blink Detection Using Facial Landmar...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: MediaPipe: A Framework for Perceiving and Processi...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PyQtGraph: Scientific Graphics and GUI Library for...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Qt
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PyQt6
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Anaconda Software Distribution
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Python 3 Reference Manual
- 10.1152/jn.00557.2002 may be a valid DOI for title: Eyelid Movements: Behavioral Studies of Blinking i...
- 10.1016/s1542-0124(11)70007-6 may be a valid DOI for title: Spontaneous Eyeblink Activity

INVALID DOIs

- None

[samhforbes]

@Timozen the paper is looking really good. There's a couple of DOIs that have been flagged as missing, so if you could fix that, that would be great.

[Timozen]

@samhforbes I updated the missing dois where possible!

• Real-Time Eye Blink Detection Using Facial Landmarks has no DOI Google Scholar

• PyQtGraph library has no DOI mentioned in their docu nor their GitHub Page

• The same goes for the Qt library and Python itself

• For Anaconda, we followed their guidlines

• Spontaneous Eyeblink Activity DOI has been added

• Eyelid Movements: Behavioral Studies... has been added

• MediaPipe ... has been added

[Timozen]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.48550/arXiv.1906.08172 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1907.06724 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/TSMC.1979.4310076 is OK
- 10.1098/rsif.2013.0227 is OK
- 10.1167/iovs.06-0499 is OK
- 10.1007/s00702-021-02391-3 is OK
- 10.1152/jn.00557.2002 is OK
- 10.1016/s1542-0124(11)70007-6 is OK
- 10.1007/s00405-016-4018-1 is OK
- 10.1109/TNSRE.2019.2961244 is OK
- 10.3390/diagnostics13030554 is OK
- 10.2196/32444 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Real-Time Eye Blink Detection Using Facial Landmar...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PyQtGraph: Scientific Graphics and GUI Library for...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Qt
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PyQt6
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Anaconda Software Distribution
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Python 3 Reference Manual

INVALID DOIs

- None

[samhforbes]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.48550/arXiv.1906.08172 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1907.06724 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/TSMC.1979.4310076 is OK
- 10.1098/rsif.2013.0227 is OK
- 10.1167/iovs.06-0499 is OK
- 10.1007/s00702-021-02391-3 is OK
- 10.1152/jn.00557.2002 is OK
- 10.1016/s1542-0124(11)70007-6 is OK
- 10.1007/s00405-016-4018-1 is OK
- 10.1109/TNSRE.2019.2961244 is OK
- 10.3390/diagnostics13030554 is OK
- 10.2196/32444 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Real-Time Eye Blink Detection Using Facial Landmar...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PyQtGraph: Scientific Graphics and GUI Library for...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Qt
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PyQt6
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Anaconda Software Distribution
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Python 3 Reference Manual

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👋 @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#5299, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@Timozen as AEiC for JOSS I will now help to process this submission for acceptance in JOSS. I have checked this review, your repository, the archive link, and the paper. Most seems in order, however the below are some points that require your attention:

• Please edit the Zenodo archive listed license. Currently it lists a CC-BY license but this should match your actual software license.
• Please edit the Zenodo archive listed version tab, this should read v1.1.0

[Timozen]

Dear @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman, thank you for pointing out these mistakes by me.
The Zenodo archive is now update: https://zenodo.org/records/11085954

Best, Tim

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot accept

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

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: Büchner
  given-names: Tim
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6879-552X"
- family-names: Mothes
  given-names: Oliver
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2294-3670"
- family-names: Guntinas-Lichius
  given-names: Orlando
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9671-0784"
- family-names: Denzler
  given-names: Joachim
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3193-3300"
contact:
- family-names: Büchner
  given-names: Tim
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6879-552X"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.11085954
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Büchner
    given-names: Tim
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6879-552X"
  - family-names: Mothes
    given-names: Oliver
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2294-3670"
  - family-names: Guntinas-Lichius
    given-names: Orlando
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9671-0784"
  - family-names: Denzler
    given-names: Joachim
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3193-3300"
  date-published: 2024-05-03
  doi: 10.21105/joss.06425
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 97
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 6425
  title: JeFaPaTo - A joint toolbox for blinking analysis and facial
    features extraction
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06425"
  volume: 9
title: JeFaPaTo - A joint toolbox for blinking analysis and facial
  features extraction

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]

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

[editorialbot]

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.06425 joss-papers#5303
1. Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06425
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

[Timozen]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman, thank you very much! Everything looks fine so far; only the PDF is not yet visible when visiting the corresponding JOSS page. I just assume that the server needs some minutes to process everything.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@Timozen looks like the DOI is resolving now (you may need to refresh your page).

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@Timozen congratulations on this JOSS publication!

@samhforbes thanks for editing!

And a special thanks to the reviewers: @mprib, @draabe !!!

[editorialbot]

🎉🎉🎉 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.06425/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06425)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06425">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06425/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06425/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06425

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

[draabe]

Congrats, @Timozen !

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman , @samhforbes , @mprib thank you for your help, this was a great reviewing experience!

[Timozen]

Thanks again @samhforbes, @draabe and @mprib! Without your dedicated work JOSS would not be what is!