Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.
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
@firasm & @pschloss, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:
✨ 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 ✨
Review checklist for @firasm
Conflict of interest
[x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.
[x] Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
[x] Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (v0.1)?
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@zdelrosario) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?
Documentation
[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
[x] Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support
[ ] Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
[x] Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
[x] Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
[x] Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
[x] Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.
JOSE paper
[x] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
[ ] Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
[ ] Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
[x] Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
[ ] Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
[ ] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
Review checklist for @pschloss
Conflict of interest
[x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.
[x] Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
[ ] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
[x] Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (v0.1)?
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@zdelrosario) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?
Documentation
[ ] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
[ ] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
[ ] Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support
[x] Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
[x] Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
[x] Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
[x] Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
[x] Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.
JOSE paper
[x] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[ ] A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
[x] Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
[x] Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
[x] Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
[x] Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
[x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
Submitting author: @zdelrosario (Zachary del Rosario) Repository: https://github.com/zdelrosario/data-science-curriculum Version: v0.1 Editor: @ttimbers Reviewer: @firasm, @pschloss Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.6314141
:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:
Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.
Status
Status badge code:
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
@firasm & @pschloss, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @ttimbers 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 ✨
Review checklist for @firasm
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Documentation
Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)
JOSE paper
paper.mdfile include a list of authors with their affiliations?Review checklist for @pschloss
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Documentation
Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)
JOSE paper
paper.mdfile include a list of authors with their affiliations?