[REVIEW]: Spatial data analysis with R: wrangling, visualization and econometric models

whedon commented 2 years ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@jaime-pru@allisonhorst<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @hernandezcortes, @nmorandeira Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7967543

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/aed2caaa5c0f30d574b83e80bd29f17d"><img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/aed2caaa5c0f30d574b83e80bd29f17d/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/aed2caaa5c0f30d574b83e80bd29f17d/status.svg)](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/aed2caaa5c0f30d574b83e80bd29f17d)

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

@hernandezcortes & @nmorandeira , please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @allisonhorst 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 @hernandezcortes

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.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

[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)
[ ] Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (1.0)?
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@jaime-pru) 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

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

[ ] 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?
[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)?

Review checklist for @nmorandeira

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.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

[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)
[ ] Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (1.0)?
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@jaime-pru) 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?
[ ] 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

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

[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?
[ ] 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?
[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)?

whedon commented 2 years ago

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @hernandezcortes, @nmorandeira it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper :tada:.

:warning: JOSE reduced service mode :warning:

:star: Important :star:

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews:

watching

You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

notifications

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

@whedon commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 2 years ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 974

whedon commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-642-23430-9 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon commented 2 years ago

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.30 s (201.7 files/s, 64926.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML                            18            421              5           9104
JavaScript                      14            806            565           3887
CSS                              6            140             60           1074
Rmd                              9            979           1481            419
SVG                              1              0              0            288
TeX                              4             34              0            257
Markdown                         4             34              0             51
YAML                             3              2              0             31
JSON                             2              0              0              2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            61           2416           2111          15113
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statistical information for the repository '064e1aa0fa9ef0b6b7345600' was
gathered on 2022/04/19.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Jaime                            1         10516              0          100.00

Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:

Author                     Rows      Stability          Age       % in comments
Jaime                     10516          100.0          0.0               10.75

whedon commented 2 years ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

allisonhorst commented 2 years ago

@nmorandeira and @hernandezcortes, thank you so much for agreeing to review this submission! Your reviewer checklists are created above. Please let me know if you have any questions, I'm happy to help (or find someone who can!).

whedon commented 2 years ago

:wave: @nmorandeira , please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

whedon commented 2 years ago

:wave: @hernandezcortes, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

nmorandeira commented 2 years ago

Hi @whedon I’m revising the submission (I’ve already revised the paper and now I’m going through the last two chapters of the course). Can you remind me the deadline?

El El mar, 3 de may. de 2022 a la(s) 18:32, whedon @.***> escribió:

👋 @nmorandeira https://github.com/nmorandeira , please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/issues/173#issuecomment-1116680337, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABTQHYOFZ27FW7Q75VK36BTVIGLOPANCNFSM5T2DRMZQ . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

nmorandeira commented 2 years ago

@whedon commands

whedon commented 2 years ago

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors

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

EDITORIAL TASKS

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf

# Compile the paper from alternative branch
@whedon generate pdf from branch custom-branch-name

# Ask Whedon to check the references for missing DOIs
@whedon check references

# Ask Whedon to check repository statistics for the submitted software
@whedon check repository

nmorandeira commented 2 years ago

@whedon check references

whedon commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-642-23430-9 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

allisonhorst commented 2 years ago

@whedon re-invite @hernandezcortes as reviewer

whedon commented 2 years ago

OK, the reviewer has been re-invited.

@hernandezcortes please accept the invite by clicking this link: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

nmorandeira commented 2 years ago

This is my review for the JOSE submision #173 by Jaime Alberto Prudencio Vázquez (@jaime-pru), entitled "Spatial data analysis with R: wrangling, visualization and econometric models". I was invited to review the submission by the editor @allisonhorst.

I've revised the article paper.md and the bookdown course. The course is very interesting, and the paper emphasizes its need –in particular for Spanish-speaking students (and I agree with the author in his statement of need). The course covers several topics on spatial data analysis, focused on covid19 data for Mexico and socio-demographic/ economic variables. I consider that this course fits the scope of the JOSE and would be of interest to the journal's readers. Here I provide several general comments, complemented by eight issues in the course repository (linked below).

1) Comments about the repository, following the Review checklist:

The course is published in a public repository. I suggest adding a description in the "About" section of the repository.
Version: the repository has no release number; the author should generate a version number.
License: the repository has a license. I suggest including a link to it in the README.md
Other suggestions for the repository's README.md: add a Spanish version and the course title (in Spanish and English); if possible, add a Spanish summary. Add a link to the course (there is a circular link to the repo).
Community guidelines: I suggest improving these guidelines. See this issue in the course repo: https://github.com/jaime-pru/Analisis-de-datos-espaciales/issues/1

2) Comments and suggestions for the article in "paper.md "

In "Story of the project", tell the readers how many editions of the course you have taught; and how evolved your course through the promotions. Do you plan to grow the course into more chapters?
Course schedule. How long would you expect a student to complete each chapter or the entire course? I suggest adding this information to the paper.md, but also adding an expected time in the bookdown course. For example, see the schedule in this course as a reference (this level of detail is not mandatory, but an expected time for each chapter or section would be nice). I also suggest adding breaks, to reduce the cognitive load and allow students to learn new chunks of information.
The book includes several Exercises. Can the student/reader find an answer to these exercises in the book? (do you plan to add the Solutions?). Or is the course expected to be completed with a teacher assistant? Please clarify this.
I suggest adding some information on how someone would adopt the course, and include examples of how to use it.
I suggest adding the Spanish title of the course, maybe at the end of the first sentence (in parentheses).
Should the link in the first sentence point to the course webpage instead of the repo?
Plural: "skills for the quantitative analyses"
Capitalize Chapter when it's followed by the chapter number. E.g. "In Chapter 1,"; "Meanwhile, in Chapter 4"; "Finally, in chapter 5,"; "from Chapter 1 to 5"
Uniformize how you name your target: the "student" or the "reader" or the "user". I'd suggest "the student".
Replace "database about information on the situation" with "database on the situation".
Uniformize "México" or "Mexico".
"In addition, the used database provides".
Capitalize: "Bachelor's degree"; "Bachelor level".
Uniformize the name of the University. I suggest using the first mention in Spanish followed by the translation between parentheses and all subsequent mentions in Spanish. Otherwise, vice-versa: first mention in English (Spanish) and continuing in English.
The word "related" is followed by "to"; and "associated" is followed by "with". Thus, I suggest rephrasing: "Each chapter contains both theoretical and practical elements related to dealing with spatial data in the context of economics."
Non-sexist language. I like your option to use "she can continue", and as far as JOSE does not state another style, it's your decision. Some English speakers use "they" as the "inclusive" pronoun (including she/he/non-binary identities); for example: "if the student feel comfortable (...), they can continue (...)". Once again, it's your decision :) and "she can continue" it's fine for me.
"facilitates the learning process."
"All the contributions will be welcome."
Add a space: "Rodríguez ("

3) Comments and suggestions about the course

I've reviewed the course and have filed one issue per chapter, with general comments and suggestions, in Spanish.

I'd like to highlight these points:

Add a schedule or estimated time to complete each chapter / subchapter (see previous comment).
Community guidelines: I suggest improvements in this section. See Issue 1 (in English with suggestions in Spanish). https://github.com/jaime-pru/Analisis-de-datos-espaciales/issues/1
Accessibility and inclusion. Some issues should be addressed to improve accessibility and inclusion. See Issue 2 (in Spanish). https://github.com/jaime-pru/Analisis-de-datos-espaciales/issues/2
The prologue and Chapters 1 to 4 are easy to follow, probably guided by a teacher assistant or giving the students the possibility to ask questions in an online forum.

A general comment is to pay attention to the first mentions of the terms and add a clear definition of the new concepts before continuing with comparisons and further information about the concept (specific examples of this are provided in the repo issues). Several definitions are lacking. The definitions for vector and raster data (Chapter 2) need to be revised (see the specific issue). A glossary would be helpful, but it's not mandatory (maybe an improvement for future versions of the course).

Regarding the references, these are my main comments. Due to the target audience of the course, I suggest including links to the Spanish versions of the R4DS book and the RStudio Cheatsheets, instead of the English links; I also strongly suggest including Victor Olaya's open-source GIS book (in Spanish) as a reference. Please double-check that you can include Coursera's texts; if so, check how to cite their materials.

The issues related to these chapters are:

Links issues 3 to 7 (in Spanish):

- Prologue https://github.com/jaime-pru/Analisis-de-datos-espaciales/issues/3
- Chapter 1 https://github.com/jaime-pru/Analisis-de-datos-espaciales/issues/4
- Chapter 2 https://github.com/jaime-pru/Analisis-de-datos-espaciales/issues/5
- Chapter 3 https://github.com/jaime-pru/Analisis-de-datos-espaciales/issues/6
- Chapter 4 https://github.com/jaime-pru/Analisis-de-datos-espaciales/issues/7
Chapter 5 has a high cognitive load and, in my opinion, needs major improvements. I consider that this chapter has fewer details on the explanations and examples than the previous chapters. Figure 5.1. cannot be read; Figures 5.2 and 5.3 are difficult to read. Comments on this chapter are provided in its specific issue, specifically on terms that are not defined or are explained with few details for novate students.

Links issue 8 (in Spanish):

- Chapter 5 https://github.com/jaime-pru/Analisis-de-datos-espaciales/issues/8
I suggest adding a Conclusions section, recapitulating the main learnings of each chapter and some guide for curious students that wish to continue learning. Although some of this is included in the last paragraph of Chapter 5 (in Section 5.3.2, Spatial error model), I think the course deserves a nicer ending, highlighting all we have learned through the course. Also, students can find a list of references with additional material (most of them were included in Chapters 1-5, but a highlight and commented reference list could be useful). And, why not?, students and contributors can be encouraged to contribute with more spatial analyses.

I'm available to the author and the editor for any query about my review. Thanks for the invitation!: I have learned about pedagogy and spatial modeling while conducting this review. I've also found interesting the JOSE reviewing mechanism, as well as its Ethic guidelines and Sustainability model. I'm also happy that the author can submit a course in Spanish and that, as a reviewer, I'm allowed to add issues/comments in Spanish.

hernandezcortes commented 2 years ago

@whedon, this comment explains my review of the JOSE submission #173. I was invited to review this paper by @allisonhorst .

I have completed the checklist provided and reviewed the JOSE paper and the course. The course is very well structured and relevant. I think that this course fills the existing gap of materials to learn R that are available in Spanish. The course will be relevant for students and professors in Spanish-speaking countries, which means that it can have a big impact for other users. Importantly, the author does not assume any previous knowledge from the students, which makes the course easy to follow for first-time R users. I have a few suggestions and recommendations below that could help the exposition of the material.

Please find below my general comments:

General checks:

I don’t think that the author has a Version but I could have missed this information.

Documentation:

It might be good to add that despite that the course covers several topics in the Economics field, the course could be good for any student that would like to learn about data analysis and how to effectively visualize it in R.

Learning objectives:

The course would benefit from a longer explanation of the objectives of the course and the tools that the students would acquire in simple terms.

JOSE paper:

The paper is well-written and motivated. I have a couple of minor suggestions:

“Economics” instead of “economics”.
I think that the course would be helpful not only for Economics students but rather any undergraduate student interested in learning quantitative methods. This would improve the impact of the course and the potential number of users.
“Meanwhile, chapter 4 presents a review of simple regression models” instead of “Meanwhile, in chapter 4, a very synthetic review of simple regression models is presented”.

Overall: Chapters 1-4 are easy to follow and very well structured. I have a few minor suggestions that would improve the ability of the author to present the materials and convey the course message. Chapter 5 is a bit technical and I think that there was a big jump between chapter 4 and chapter 5. It might be good to remind the students the limitations of regression analysis and why spatial analysis is a powerful tool. Chapter 5 would also benefit from explaining the models with more intuition and examples.

Specific comments to the chapters can be found below: Chapter 1: https://github.com/jaime-pru/Analisis-de-datos-espaciales/issues/10 Chapter 2: https://github.com/jaime-pru/Analisis-de-datos-espaciales/issues/9 Chapter 4: https://github.com/jaime-pru/Analisis-de-datos-espaciales/issues/11 Chapter 5: https://github.com/jaime-pru/Analisis-de-datos-espaciales/issues/12

Please let me know if there are any additional questions or concerns about my review. I really enjoyed reading the book and learned a lot from the author. I am looking forward to reading the final version of the book and learning more about spatial econometrics. Thank you so much for the opportunity to serve as a reviewer and I apologize for the late review.

whedon commented 2 years ago

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@whedon commands

hernandezcortes commented 2 years ago

@whedon commands

whedon commented 2 years ago

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors

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

EDITORIAL TASKS

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf

# Compile the paper from alternative branch
@whedon generate pdf from branch custom-branch-name

# Ask Whedon to check the references for missing DOIs
@whedon check references

# Ask Whedon to check repository statistics for the submitted software
@whedon check repository

labarba commented 1 year ago

hi, @jaime-pru 👋 The reviewers have now provided their input and suggestions to improve the submission. Please work on your revisions and come back here to let us know when you want reviewers and editor to take a new look. Godspeed!

jaime-pru commented 1 year ago

Ok. I am going to work in the comments. Thank you very much!

allisonhorst commented 1 year ago

Hi @jaime-pru, we hope your revisions are going well! Please let us know if you have questions re: the revision or resubmission process.

jaime-pru commented 1 year ago

This is replay to the review for the JOSE submission #173, entitled "Spatial data analysis with R: wrangling, visualization and econometric models". The reviewers are @nmorandeira and @hernandezcortes, invited by @allisonhorst.

I appreciate the time and effort made by the reviewers, whose detailed comments and suggestions have enriched the original proposal. I apologize for the time taken in the correction process.

A complete and in-depth revision of the electronic book and the article was carried out, based on the comments of the reviewers and the use of the material by my students during 2022. After the incorporation of the suggested corrections, we consider the book gained expository clarity through greater clarity and didactics. Although in each Issue opened by the reviewers, each of the changes made is listed in detail, here the most outstanding changes in each section of the volume are indicated.

Paper The history of the project was explained more detailed and the way to contribute to it was pointed out more clearly. Following the reviewers' recommendations, a suggested way on how to use the material was included, indicating the study time and the scope of the included exercises.

Foreword There are three main changes made in this section. First, the student was given a broader context of the so-called regional sciences, a field in which the work seeks to contribute, while references to basic materials in Spanish on these disciplines are offered. Second, we use non-sexist language during the exposition of this and the other chapters, for which reason it was decided to use the term “la estudiante” throughout the entire book. Finally, the scope and characteristics of the project were stated, and more careful instructions were given, in Spanish and English, on how to contribute.

Chapter 1 In chapter 1, in which the student is introduced to the use of R and the manipulation of information, there are two substantive changes. First, we sought to carry out a clearer and more didactic exposition, pointing out the scope of the chapter and correcting some elements that could cause confusion to the user who is working with R and RStudio for the first time. On the other hand, material references were provided in Spanish, both for information manipulation and cheat sheets.

Chapter 2 In the chapter related to choropleth maps, @nmorandeira's set of suggestions, comments and corrections was particularly helpful in pointing out errors and inaccuracies in some key terms related to the handling of spatial information. In this sense, through the bibliographic recommendations of the reviewer, incorrectly used definitions and terms were corrected, while the student was provided with the suggested materials in Spanish. In addition, following the comments of @hernandezcortes, an attempt was made to develop a brief and clear exposition on the types of spatial information and their differences, in addition to offering a little more information about cartographic projections.

Chapter 3 In chapter 3 on spatial autocorrelation, an attempt was made to improve the discussion on the meaning of spatial autocorrelation. Examples that could be confusing were eliminated and others were offered trying to illustrate, in the simplest way possible, the meaning of the definition.

Chapter 4 Chapter 4, which serves as a review of the fundamental elements of regression analysis, was put in context and its scope and proposed objectives were defined.

In the corrections, the observations of @hernandezcortes were particularly useful, who pointed out expository weaknesses and suggested corrections for a better understanding of the students about the regression method and hypothesis testing.

Chapter 5 The fifth and last chapter devoted to spatial econometric models was changed substantially: sections were added, others were expanded, and the exposition was generally modified.

The concept of spatial econometrics was carefully defined and each of the spatial effects that integrate the general model was exposed. In addition, the process for estimating spatial models was broken down in more detail, following the recommendations given, dividing by steps. On the other hand, the interpretation of the two models was elaborated.

Finally, a section was added where a recapitulation of the contents covered in the book is sought and recommendations for additional reading are listed.

I am really glad to the magnificent work done by the reviewers and, of course, if there is still any mistake, it is completely by my own. So we think we are ready for a second review.

jaime-pru commented 1 year ago

@whedon commands

whedon commented 1 year ago

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors

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

EDITORIAL TASKS

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf

# Compile the paper from alternative branch
@whedon generate pdf from branch custom-branch-name

# Ask Whedon to check the references for missing DOIs
@whedon check references

# Ask Whedon to check repository statistics for the submitted software
@whedon check repository

jaime-pru commented 1 year ago

@whedon check repository

whedon commented 1 year ago

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.34 s (233.9 files/s, 70554.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JavaScript                      25           1592           1104           7183
HTML                            11            270              5           5372
XML                              3              0            134           2099
CSS                             15            152            118           1915
Rmd                             10           1136           1587            503
TeX                              4             55              0            394
SVG                              1              0              0            288
Markdown                         6             75              0            110
YAML                             3              2              0             38
JSON                             2              0              0              2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            80           3282           2948          17904
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statistical information for the repository '8cf600ddd69b0365d759a084' was
gathered on 2023/03/21.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Alvaro1899                       4          3987          17083           47.55
Jaime                            1         10516              0           23.73
Jaime Prudencio                  2         12726              0           28.72

Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:

Author                     Rows      Stability          Age       % in comments
Alvaro1899                 3987          100.0          2.5                9.00
Jaime Prudencio            6159           48.4         -0.0               12.75

labarba commented 1 year ago

@allisonhorst 👋 — I realize you have retired from the board, but I hope you can hop in here one last time to take this submission through the finish line. The authors have done their revisions in response to detailed comments from our kind reviewers!

labarba commented 1 year ago

hi @jaime-pru — thanks for your patience. Your handling editor has moved on from academia to industry, and has stepped down from the board. She did say that she would finish this submission, so I hope she'll pop in to check your revisions.

A heads-up on the final steps that will be needed once she recommends acceptance—you will be asked to do the following:

[ ] Make a tagged release in your repository, and list the version tag here.
[ ] Archive the release in Zenodo (or a similar service)
[ ] Check the Zenodo deposit has the correct metadata, this includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it); you may also add the authors' ORCID.
[ ] List the Zenodo DOI of the archived version here.

jaime-pru commented 1 year ago

Hi, @labarba, thank you very much. I appreciate @allisonhorst's time and disposition to complete the processes. Meanwhile, I will work on the listed tasks.

Thanks again to @nmorandeira and @hernandezcortes for their comments and observations.

allisonhorst commented 1 year ago

@whedon check repository

whedon commented 1 year ago

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.27 s (301.8 files/s, 91038.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JavaScript                      25           1592           1104           7183
HTML                            11            270              5           5372
XML                              3              0            134           2099
CSS                             15            152            118           1915
Rmd                             10           1136           1587            503
TeX                              4             55              0            394
SVG                              1              0              0            288
Markdown                         6             75              0            111
YAML                             3              2              0             38
JSON                             2              0              0              2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            80           3282           2948          17905
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statistical information for the repository 'a194ef321729ef5ca6eaee59' was
gathered on 2023/05/29.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Alvaro1899                       4          3987          17083           47.55
Jaime                            1         10516              0           23.73
Jaime Prudencio                  2         12726              0           28.72

Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:

Author                     Rows      Stability          Age       % in comments
Alvaro1899                 3987          100.0          2.5                9.00
Jaime Prudencio            6159           48.4         -0.0               12.75

allisonhorst commented 1 year ago

@whedon check references

allisonhorst commented 1 year ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 1 year ago

PDF failed to compile for issue #173 with the following error:

 Can't find any papers to compile :-(

allisonhorst commented 1 year ago

@labarba can you advise on the above re: PDF failing to compile - the authors have included both paper-en.md and paper-es.md as English and Spanish versions in the repo, which I assume is creating the issue. Should they update one to just paper.md?

allisonhorst commented 1 year ago

Hi all, thank you for your patience! Huge thanks to @nmorandeira and @hernandezcortes for such thoughtful reviews and feedback, and to @jaime-pru for the thorough revision and summary of changes made.

I am excited to recommend acceptance to JOSE.

@jaime-pru can you please let me know (or check off above) when the tasks above to make the tagged release & Zenodo DOI are complete? Thank you!

jaime-pru commented 1 year ago

Hi, @allisonhorst. I believe that the tasks listed by @labarba have now been completed:

Make a tagged release in your repository, and list the version tag here. The tagged release is v.1.0.0 and can be checked here.
Archive the release in Zenodo (or a similar service): The release has been archived in Zenodo here.
Check that the Zenodo deposit has the correct metadata, including the title (which should match the paper title) and author list (ensuring the list is correct and excluding those who made only minor fixes); you may also add the authors' ORCID. All the metadata has been checked.
List the Zenodo DOI of the archived version here. The Zenodo DOI is 10.5281/zenodo.7967543.

Additionally, I have saved the paper with the correct name "paper.md" and preserved the Spanish version to address the mentioned issue.

Let me know if there is anything else I can assist you with.

Thanks for your time.

allisonhorst commented 1 year ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 1 year ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

allisonhorst commented 1 year ago

@whedon check references

whedon commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-642-23430-9 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01686 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v084.i06 is OK
- 10.1111/gean.12319 is OK
- 10.3390/math9111276 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

allisonhorst commented 1 year ago

@whedon check repository

whedon commented 1 year ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 1488

whedon commented 1 year ago

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.29 s (279.9 files/s, 84443.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JavaScript                      25           1592           1104           7183
HTML                            11            270              5           5372
XML                              3              0            134           2099
CSS                             15            152            118           1915
Rmd                             10           1136           1587            503
TeX                              4             55              0            394
SVG                              1              0              0            288
Markdown                         6             75              0            111
YAML                             3              2              0             38
JSON                             2              0              0              2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            80           3282           2948          17905
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statistical information for the repository 'b6730926c5445f9ae4dc0887' was
gathered on 2023/06/08.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Alvaro1899                       4          3987          17083           47.55
Jaime                            1         10516              0           23.73
Jaime Prudencio                  2         12726              0           28.72

Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:

Author                     Rows      Stability          Age       % in comments
Alvaro1899                 3987          100.0          2.5                9.00
Jaime Prudencio            6159           48.4         -0.0               12.75

allisonhorst commented 1 year ago

@whedon set 0.5281/zenodo.7967543 as archive

whedon commented 1 year ago

0.5281/zenodo.7967543 doesn't look like an archive DOI.

allisonhorst commented 1 year ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.7967543 as archive

whedon commented 1 year ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.7967543 is the archive.

openjournals / jose-reviews