R is properly cited and indicated in the paper without any issues.
Class Paper
There is no indication of a class paper within the document.
LLM Usage
LLM usage is clearly documented and well noted in the README. However, adding a new sub-heading inside the README could provide readers with a clearer understanding with just a quick skim.
Title
The title appears somewhat vague; specifying whether the impact discussed is positive or negative would provide more clarity.
Author/s, Date, and Repository
The author, date, and repository are all clearly indicated in the YAML header.
Abstract
The abstract is good; you have mentioned which paper you are replicating and some of the pointers that you will discuss. However, at the end of the abstract, you state that:
which guides people proactively deal with potential regret when making decisions,
This statement does not directly relate to the context of the paper. While it may be applicable at a personal level, you could have elaborated on why this aspect is relevant to the study.
Introduction
The introduction effectively utilizes relevant literature to introduce and support the paper's main claims. However, there are some instances where cross-referencing could have been beneficial. For example, instead of stating:
In the Data part, we mentioned ..., In the result part,
you could have used cross-references, which would enhance clarity and organization.
Additionally, the discussion about data manipulation and the libraries used could be better placed in the Data section to maintain the flow of ideas within the introduction.
Data
All data usage is adequately described; however, the section is overly long. Subdividing the Data section into subsections would improve organization and help readers comprehend the content more easily.
An example of a well-written sentence within this section is:
A total of 460 randomly recruited prolific participants... 339 participants were included and provided with scale-mode questions.
Still there are issues with cross references:
Study 1 in the original report, we only selected 1b
No cross reference to table. You could've also write some lines explaining what study are at the start of the data.
Measurement
While there isn't a clear section dedicated to measurement, an explicit paragraph summarizing how data was collected, processed, and utilized as a metric in the analysis would be beneficial. This would enhance the understanding of the study's methodology.
Results
Graphs and tables are clearly explained and analyzed in the paper. However, please check the title for Table 2 to ensure accuracy.
Discussion
I enjoyed reading your discussion; it was thorough, and you have clearly referred to different literatures. In the discussion section, it's essential to elaborate further on the implications of the results. One aspect to consider is the ethical implications of the findings, especially regarding decision-making and potential regret. Additionally, discussing the biases inherent in the data or analysis, such as observational biases, would add depth to the discussion.
Graphs/Tables
Ensure that all graphs and tables are properly labeled and appropriately sized for clarity. For example, in Figure 6, the y-axis values are very large, which could be misleading.
References
Ensure all references are properly cited and formatted according to the required style guide. You have added Lists which is not the correct format.
Commits
More than 2 commits and a meaningful commit message
Sketches
Sketches are missing inside this inputs folder. Please include sketched.
Simulation
Yes, you have sufficiently shown evidence of simulation, and I can see file for reproducibility inside scripts folder.
Test
No tests, even if there are I couldn't find them. Please make a new file in Script by explicitly stating that it is for tests.
Reproducibility
Yes, you have sufficiently shown evidence of reproducibility by explicitly mentioning the link in your paper, and I can see file for reproducibility inside Replicate folder.
Citation
R is properly cited and indicated in the paper without any issues.
Class Paper
There is no indication of a class paper within the document.
LLM Usage
LLM usage is clearly documented and well noted in the README. However, adding a new sub-heading inside the README could provide readers with a clearer understanding with just a quick skim.
Title
The title appears somewhat vague; specifying whether the impact discussed is positive or negative would provide more clarity.
Author/s, Date, and Repository
The author, date, and repository are all clearly indicated in the YAML header.
Abstract
The abstract is good; you have mentioned which paper you are replicating and some of the pointers that you will discuss. However, at the end of the abstract, you state that:
This statement does not directly relate to the context of the paper. While it may be applicable at a personal level, you could have elaborated on why this aspect is relevant to the study.
Introduction
The introduction effectively utilizes relevant literature to introduce and support the paper's main claims. However, there are some instances where cross-referencing could have been beneficial. For example, instead of stating:
you could have used cross-references, which would enhance clarity and organization.
Additionally, the discussion about data manipulation and the libraries used could be better placed in the Data section to maintain the flow of ideas within the introduction.
Data
All data usage is adequately described; however, the section is overly long. Subdividing the Data section into subsections would improve organization and help readers comprehend the content more easily.
An example of a well-written sentence within this section is:
Still there are issues with cross references:
No cross reference to table. You could've also write some lines explaining what study are at the start of the data.
Measurement
While there isn't a clear section dedicated to measurement, an explicit paragraph summarizing how data was collected, processed, and utilized as a metric in the analysis would be beneficial. This would enhance the understanding of the study's methodology.
Results
Graphs and tables are clearly explained and analyzed in the paper. However, please check the title for
Table 2to ensure accuracy.Discussion
I enjoyed reading your discussion; it was thorough, and you have clearly referred to different literatures. In the discussion section, it's essential to elaborate further on the implications of the results. One aspect to consider is the ethical implications of the findings, especially regarding decision-making and potential regret. Additionally, discussing the biases inherent in the data or analysis, such as observational biases, would add depth to the discussion.
Graphs/Tables
Ensure that all graphs and tables are properly labeled and appropriately sized for clarity. For example, in
Figure 6, the y-axis values are very large, which could be misleading.References
Ensure all references are properly cited and formatted according to the required style guide. You have added
Listswhich is not the correct format.Commits
More than 2 commits and a meaningful commit message
Sketches
Sketches are missing inside this
inputsfolder. Please include sketched.Simulation
Yes, you have sufficiently shown evidence of simulation, and I can see file for reproducibility inside
scriptsfolder.Test
No tests, even if there are I couldn't find them. Please make a new file in
Scriptby explicitly stating that it is for tests.Reproducibility
Yes, you have sufficiently shown evidence of reproducibility by explicitly mentioning the link in your paper, and I can see file for reproducibility inside
Replicatefolder.