[PRE REVIEW]: A short course about fitting models with the `scipy.optimize` module

whedon commented 6 years ago

Submitting author: @arokem (Ariel Rokem) Repository: https://github.com/arokem/scipy-optimize Version: 0.1 Editor: @labarba Reviewers: @oliviaguest, @ThomasA

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @arokem. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@arokem if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

whedon commented 6 years ago

Hello human, I'm @whedon. I'm here to help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

whedon commented 6 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 6 years ago

--> Check article proof :page_facing_up: <--

arokem commented 6 years ago

@whedon commands

whedon commented 6 years ago

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List all of Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# Assign a GitHub user as the sole reviewer of this submission
@whedon assign @username as reviewer

# Add a GitHub user to the reviewers of this submission
@whedon add @username as reviewer

# Remove a GitHub user from the reviewers of this submission
@whedon remove @username as reviewer

# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors

# List of reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers

# Change editorial assignment
@whedon assign @username as editor

# Set the software archive DOI at the top of the issue e.g.
@whedon set 10.0000/zenodo.00000 as archive

# Open the review issue
@whedon start review

🚧 🚧 🚧 Experimental Whedon features 🚧 🚧 🚧

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf

arokem commented 6 years ago

From a quick read of their reviewing interests, I'd suggest Lindsey Heagy, Sidafa Conde, Thomas Arlidsen, and/or Manjari Narayan as reviewers.

Sadly, the google sheet of potential reviewers doesn't have their Github users, so I couldn't tag them here, see https://github.com/openjournals/jose/issues/12

labarba commented 6 years ago

Hang on, @arokem — we had a telecon with the editorial board last week, and have some more precise guidance on what we want in the paper. Stay tuned!

arokem commented 6 years ago

OK. Will sit tight.

labarba commented 6 years ago

@arokem -- I modified our guidance notes a bit to reflect the discussion at our board telecon of a few days ago. See recent changes on the paper contents and the reviewer checklist.

We'd like the JOSE paper to give more information to the readers, helping them quickly decide if they may want to investigate further by going to the repo, because they might be interested in adopting the materials. We should learn about the module at least:

what need does it satisfy? how is it eligible for JOSE?
how has it been used? how would someone else use it?
what's the story behind it? what's the effort the author(s) have put in and their expertise to teach this?

Could you work some more on your paper, to this expanded guideline?

arokem commented 6 years ago

Will do.

Thanks for the guidance!

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Lorena A. Barba notifications@github.com wrote:

@arokem https://github.com/arokem -- I modified our guidance notes a bit to reflect the discussion at our board telecon of a few days ago. See recent changes on the paper contents https://github.com/openjournals/jose/commit/0e9d9fe16ee9272a2a89717ac4fb938861dbce65 and the reviewer checklist https://github.com/openjournals/jose/commit/e9078a1f7abe9e9998f5b0cc06166c4d28b21bc7 .

We'd like the JOSE paper to give more information to the readers, helping them quickly decide if they may want to investigate further by going to the repo, because they might be interested in adopting the materials. We should learn about the module at least:

what need does it satisfy? how is it eligible for JOSE?

how has it been used? how would someone else use it?

what's the story behind it? what's the effort the author(s) have put in and their expertise to teach this?

Could you work some more on your paper, to this expanded guideline?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/issues/11#issuecomment-392291689, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAHPNmJOTsh40nf6d0kNHl5lb9LFOIeZks5t2dWRgaJpZM4T734v .

arokem commented 6 years ago

I believe that changes implemented in https://github.com/arokem/scipy-optimize/commit/3f0810b74f5446f7a242fc793dcafa5b54514b90 should cover these requirements.

labarba commented 6 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 6 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 6 years ago

--> Check article proof :page_facing_up: <--

labarba commented 6 years ago

@whedon assign @labarba as editor

whedon commented 6 years ago

OK, the editor is @labarba

labarba commented 6 years ago

@arokem — I'm looking for reviewer(s) for your submission now. In the meantime, I have the following direction for you:

Move "contributing" and "reporting issues" out of the paper and into a README in your repo.
Let's re-organize the structure of the paper a little bit. For your fist paragraph, use the heading "Summary," instead of "Description." Then you have "Statement of Need" and "Learning Objectives," which are fine. Then, you could have a top heading "Description of the module," under which "Usage" can be a sub-heading, but put that after other sub-heading content (next item).
The long heading "Content, instructional design, and experience of use in teaching and learning situations" is a little ugly; this comes straight from the Author Guide, I realize, but we didn't mean for it to be a heading, just direction on what to include. Yet, the content under this heading is scant. So, reorganize this under the heading "Description of the module," and tell us the story of this tutorial.

This tutorial began as a blog post blah-blah Software Carptentry [link]. It was taught as a synchronous online workshop as part of the series blah-blah UC Davis [link]. The example data in the tutorial comes from an experiment in visual neuroscience [reference]. Learners follow along as we read the data from a comma-separated file, plot the data, then transform the data to increasingly reveal its structure. Then follows a lesson on different kinds of models blah-blah linear/nonlinear. We define the functional form for our model [reference] and a measure of modeling error. Blah-blah optimize. Blah evaluate. Poof, done.

Get my drift? Walk us through the tutorial in one brief paragraph, so we imagine what it is to sit through it.

If you have anything to add about why you broke things down like you did, please tell us. This is the "instructional design" question. Is there a concept that learners find particularly difficult here, and you spend more time on it? And so on.

labarba commented 6 years ago

The Author Guide says:

Computational learning modules should be complete and immediately usable for self-learning or adoption by other instructors.

Essentially, what we want the JOSE paper to do is to show that the submission meets the eligibility requirement. So it should explain how an instructor other than the author might adopt the module, or how an independent learner might use it.

arfon commented 6 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 6 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 6 years ago

--> Check article proof :page_facing_up: <--

arokem commented 6 years ago

Thanks for the comments @labarba!

Changes implemented in https://github.com/arokem/scipy-optimize/commit/38c1d52b2fe7605f93e1a4dd45d09a05275b759b and https://github.com/arokem/scipy-optimize/commit/dbc794b8522261d29259100992b29495b3a73212

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:24 PM whedon notifications@github.com wrote:

--> Check article proof 📄 <-- https://github.com/openjournals/jose-papers/blob/jose.00011/jose.00011/10.21105.jose.00011.pdf

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/issues/11#issuecomment-397719394, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAHPNvw2E74GNAlSVY9yBGYdtlOlW05zks5t9An2gaJpZM4T734v .

labarba commented 6 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 6 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 6 years ago

--> Check article proof :page_facing_up: <--

labarba commented 6 years ago

@whedon assign @oliviaguest as reviewer

whedon commented 6 years ago

OK, the reviewer is @oliviaguest

labarba commented 6 years ago

@whedon add @ThomasA as reviewer

whedon commented 6 years ago

OK, @ThomasA is now a reviewer

labarba commented 6 years ago

@whedon start review magic-word=bananas

whedon commented 6 years ago

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/issues/16. Feel free to close this issue now!

openjournals / jose-reviews

[PRE REVIEW]: A short course about fitting models with the `scipy.optimize` module #11