[Insight-developers] ITK 2.8 Repository Tagged & Branched

Tue Jun 6 12:01:19 EDT 2006

Hi Gaetan,

Reviewing a paper can be interesting but sometimes it can be really 
painful (talking from my own experience here). We just have to accept 
that this is a necessary step.

Couple of things we can do in order to improve the review process:

1) Send automatic email to the users/developers lists when a new 
publication is submitted to the IJ (Luis had this idea before and it's 
almost implemented).

2) Have an editor for the IJ who will select the appropriate reviewers 
and set a deadline when the reviews are due. (I tend to wait until the 
last moment to review a paper and if I don't get a reminder then I tend 
to forget about it...)

3) Send automatic email when a paper had no/few reviews for a long time 
to encourage users and developers to sign up for reviews.

4) Publish a newsletter (or something like that) with the new 
contributions and the names of the reviewers. This will somehow reward 
reviewers (as well as authors).

If you have any other ideas I'm open to suggestions.

For the last 6 months we've received 21 publications for ITK, which 
makes about one publication a week (not that bad...).
We didn't envision using the IJ as a tollgate for ITK contributions in 
the first place and I really think if we improve the IJ to fit this 
design it will get better.

Julien

Gaetan Lehmann wrote:
> 
> Hi Julien,
> 
> To be clear, I thought IJ was a great idea, to improve contribution 
> quality, and to valorize (I'm not sure that the right word) my work - 
> show to everybody the work done, and have something about ITK to put in 
> my evaluation form.
> That's why I contributed articles and reviews.
> 
> That's right that there is some things to change in the interface to 
> make IJ much better, but I don't think it will significantly change the 
> numbers of reviews. Reviewing a contribution take some time, and it 
> seems that the number of people ready to do that is quite small. Even 
> official ITK developers are rarely taking the time to review the 
> articles. How do you think to convince the normal user to do that ?
> With the results of the first months of the IJ, are you sure that 
> working more on it is a good use of your time ?
> 
> Gaetan
> 
> 
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 16:29:57 +0200, Julien Jomier 
> <julien.jomier at kitware.com> wrote:
> 
>> Gaetan,
>>
>> I agree with you the IJ is not reaching is full potential.
>> However, the main issue at this point is not the number of 
>> publications but the amount of reviews for new code and this is 
>> slowing down the process. Moreover, the submission of new revisions is 
>> somehow painful.
>>
>> Here are some features that we want to implement (hopefully soon) for 
>> the Insight Journal.
>>
>> 1) Separate CVS access for submission into the IJ so bug fixes can be 
>> quickly fixed without a need for a resubmission.
>>
>> 2) Improved review design for submission to ITK (and other toolkits). 
>> The idea is to assign two/three main reviewers and set a deadline for 
>> the reviews (with email reminders). This should speedup the 
>> integration into the toolkit. Also, at submission time, you will be 
>> able to specify if this is a new feature or bug fix, etc...
>>
>> I'm also collecting ideas/features on how to improve the IJ. Feel free 
>> to send me an email or log a feature request at www.itk.org/Bug (there 
>> is a project for Insight Journal).
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Julien
>>
>> Gaetan Lehmann wrote:
>>>  Luis,
>>>  Do you still think the Insight Journal is the proper way to get new 
>>> code ?
>>> While some interesting contributions have been published to the 
>>> journal, the abscence of discussion about those contributions 
>>> completely kills the contribution process. The new code seems to not 
>>> be much integrated than before to the toolkit - even bug fixes and 
>>> feature/performance improvement are not. After several months of 
>>> existance, it seems that the journal is not able to reach the minimum 
>>> amount of publishers and reviewers to work smoothly.
>>> Perhaps the ITK community is too small for this kind of process ?
>>> Don't you think that going back to committing directly new classes in 
>>> the repository should increase the development dynamic of the toolkit ?
>>>  Regards,
>>>  Gaetan
>>>   On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 14:21:03 +0200, Luis Ibanez 
>>> <luis.ibanez at kitware.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The CVS repository has been tagged and branched for ITK 2.8.
>>>>
>>>> The repository is open for commits again.
>>>>
>>>> Please keep in mind that only bug fixes, new tests, and
>>>> performance improvements should be committed directly.
>>>>
>>>> Any new classes, or API changes should be posted first as
>>>> technical reports to the Insight Journal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please let us know if you find any problems,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         Luis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Insight-developers mailing list
>>>> Insight-developers at itk.org
>>>> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers
>>>    --Gaëtan Lehmann
>>> Biologie du Développement et de la Reproduction
>>> INRA de Jouy-en-Josas (France)
>>> tel: +33 1 34 65 29 66    fax: 01 34 65 29 09
>>> http://voxel.jouy.inra.fr
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Insight-developers mailing list
>>> Insight-developers at itk.org
>>> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers
>>>
> 
> 
> 
> --Gaëtan Lehmann
> Biologie du Développement et de la Reproduction
> INRA de Jouy-en-Josas (France)
> tel: +33 1 34 65 29 66    fax: 01 34 65 29 09
> http://voxel.jouy.inra.fr
> _______________________________________________
> Insight-developers mailing list
> Insight-developers at itk.org
> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers
> 