editorialbot commented 9 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@mhahsler@stats-tgeorge<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @rudeboybert, @stats-tgeorge Archive: 10.6084/m9.figshare.26750404.v1 Paper kind: learning module

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/1c21e289cb9c887b65cb58740f947f07"><img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/1c21e289cb9c887b65cb58740f947f07/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/1c21e289cb9c887b65cb58740f947f07/status.svg)](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/1c21e289cb9c887b65cb58740f947f07)

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

@hughshanahan & @rudeboybert, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review. First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://openjournals.readthedocs.io/en/jose/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @stats-tgeorge 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 ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @rudeboybert

📝 Checklist for @stats-tgeorge

editorialbot commented 9 months ago

Hello humans, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

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

@editorialbot commands

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

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 9 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.21105/joss.01686 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v091.i01 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v025.i03 is OK
- 10.32614/RJ-2017-047 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v028.i05 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 9 months ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=5.92 s (11.8 files/s, 4540.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML                            19            695             45          11004
JavaScript                      18            853           1223           6185
Rmd                              9           1116           2249           1284
CSS                             10             96             81            856
TeX                              3             81              0            665
SVG                              1              0              0            288
Markdown                         3             28              0             93
YAML                             3              1              0             19
R                                2              1              3              5
Bourne Shell                     1              1              0              2
JSON                             1              0              0              1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            70           2872           3601          20402
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 9 months ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 492

stats-tgeorge commented 9 months ago

Thank you both @hughshanahan and @rudeboybert for agreeing to review this submission. Let's aim to complete your checklists by March 15th, 2024.

editorialbot commented 9 months ago

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

stats-tgeorge commented 8 months ago

Hello @hughshanahan and @rudeboybert, this is a friendly reminder to review this submission. Thank you!

stats-tgeorge commented 7 months ago

Hello @hughshanahan, are you able to review this?

stats-tgeorge commented 7 months ago

Hello @rudeboybert, are you able to review this?

rudeboybert commented 5 months ago

So sorry @stats-tgeorge to have dropped the ball on this. It was a brutal semester. Do you still need this? If so, I can get it to you by the evening of Thu 6/30.

stats-tgeorge commented 5 months ago

Hello @rudeboybert. I am sorry to hear of the rough semester. I'm sure you are excited about summer then! I am still looking for people to review this. This is also my area so I can be a reviewer if necessary. I may see if others are available now that it is summer. Thank you for following up!

rudeboybert commented 5 months ago

Review checklist for @rudeboybert

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 https://github.com/mhahsler/Introduction_to_Data_Mining_R_Examples?
[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?
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@mhahsler) 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!)

[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?
[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)?

rudeboybert commented 5 months ago

@mhahsler a few outstanding items need to be addressed in my checklist above

mhahsler commented 4 months ago

@rudeboybert Thank you for the review. I have addressed the three issues:

Added a section called "Software Requirements" in README.md with installation instructions.
Added a section called "Statement of Need" in README.md
Created a release with version number 1.0.0 for the GitHub repository.

I am not sure if creating the release is sufficient to address "Version: Does the release version given match the repository release?".

Best regards, Michael

stats-tgeorge commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot remove @hughshanahan as reviewer

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

@hughshanahan removed from the reviewers list!

stats-tgeorge commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot add @stats-tgeorge as reviewer

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

@stats-tgeorge added to the reviewers list!

stats-tgeorge commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot commands

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

Hello @stats-tgeorge, here are the things you can ask me to do:


# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Add to this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot add @username as reviewer

# Remove from this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot remove @username from reviewers

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Assign a user as the editor of this submission
@editorialbot assign @username as editor

# Remove the editor assigned to this submission
@editorialbot remove editor

# Remind an author, a reviewer or the editor to return to a review after a 
# certain period of time (supported units days and weeks)
@editorialbot remind @reviewer in 2 weeks

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for version
@editorialbot set v1.0.0 as version

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set jose-paper as branch

# Set a value for repository
@editorialbot set https://github.com/organization/repo as repository

# Set a value for the archive DOI
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.6861996 as archive

# Mention the EiCs for the correct track
@editorialbot ping track-eic

# Run checks and provide information on the repository and the paper file
@editorialbot check repository

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Recommends the submission for acceptance
@editorialbot recommend-accept

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Flag submission with questionable scope
@editorialbot query scope

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

# Creates a post-review checklist with editor and authors tasks
@editorialbot create post-review checklist

# Open the review issue
@editorialbot start review

stats-tgeorge commented 4 months ago

Review checklist for @stats-tgeorge

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 https://github.com/mhahsler/Introduction_to_Data_Mining_R_Examples?
[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?
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@mhahsler) 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!)

[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?
[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)?

stats-tgeorge commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot check repository

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.18 s (383.6 files/s, 147397.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML                            19            695             45          11004
JavaScript                      18            853           1223           6185
Rmd                              9           1116           2249           1284
CSS                             10             96             81            856
TeX                              3             81              0            665
SVG                              1              0              0            288
Markdown                         3             34              0            108
YAML                             3              1              0             19
R                                2              1              3              5
Bourne Shell                     1              1              0              2
JSON                             1              0              0              1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            70           2878           3601          20417
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   144  Michael Hahsler
    41  mhahsler
     2  vz-ai
     1  Juanjo Bazán

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 492

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

License info:

🔴 License found: Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International (Not OSI approved)

stats-tgeorge commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.21105/joss.01686 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v091.i01 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v025.i03 is OK
- 10.32614/RJ-2017-047 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v028.i05 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Introduction to Data Mining
- No DOI given, and none found for title: arules – A Computational Environment for Mining As...

INVALID DOIs

- None

stats-tgeorge commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

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

mhahsler commented 4 months ago

The proof looks good.

@stats-tgeorge Thank you for guiding me through this process. It has helped me with improving the resource.

stats-tgeorge commented 4 months ago

@mhahsler I've added a to-do list as an issue. Here

mhahsler commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

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

mhahsler commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

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

mhahsler commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

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

stats-tgeorge commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.18637/jss.v014.i15 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01686 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v091.i01 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v025.i03 is OK
- 10.32614/RJ-2017-047 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v028.i05 is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.tidymodels is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1002/0471687545.ch1 may be a valid DOI for title: Introduction to Data Mining

INVALID DOIs

- None

stats-tgeorge commented 4 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.18637/jss.v014.i15 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01686 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v091.i01 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v025.i03 is OK
- 10.32614/RJ-2017-047 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v028.i05 is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.tidymodels is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1002/0471687545.ch1 may be a valid DOI for title: Introduction to Data Mining

INVALID DOIs

- None

@mhahsler Looks like there is still a DOI issue.

mhahsler commented 4 months ago

@stats-tgeorge The book "Introduction to Data Mining" seems to not have a registered DOI. The DOI in the check is for an unrelated book chapter with the same name.

It has a DOI used internally only by ACM, but it is not registered with DOI.org https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3208440

rudeboybert commented 3 months ago

@mhahsler checklist is complete

stats-tgeorge commented 2 months ago

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

[ ] Double check authors and affiliations (including ORCIDs)
[ ] Make a release of the software with the latest changes from the review and post the version number here. This is the version that will be used in the JOSE paper.
[ ] Archive the release on Zenodo/figshare/etc and post the DOI here.
[ ] Make sure that the title and author list (including ORCIDs) in the archive match those in the JOSE paper.
[ ] Make sure that the license listed for the archive is the same as the software license.

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance

[x] Read the text of the paper and offer comments/corrections (as either a list or a PR)
[x] Check the references in the paper for corrections (e.g. capitalization)
[x] Check that the archive title, author list, version tag, and the license are correct
[x] Set archive DOI with @editorialbot set <DOI here> as archive
[x] Set version with @editorialbot set <version here> as version
[x] Double check rendering of paper with @editorialbot generate pdf
[x] Specifically check the references with @editorialbot check references and ask author(s) to update as needed
[x] Recommend acceptance with @editorialbot recommend-accept

stats-tgeorge commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot check repository

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.22 s (356.7 files/s, 146432.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML                            21            718             45          13627
JavaScript                      18            854           1231           6201
Rmd                             11           1518           3235           1588
CSS                             11             96             86            872
TeX                              3            101              0            837
SVG                              1              0              0            288
Markdown                         4             53              0            190
R                                3              5              4             21
YAML                             3              2              0             19
Bourne Shell                     1              7              1             11
JSON                             1              0              0              1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            77           3354           4602          23655
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   165  Michael Hahsler
    41  mhahsler
     2  vz-ai
     1  Juanjo Bazán

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 965

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

License info:

🔴 License found: Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International (Not OSI approved)

stats-tgeorge commented 2 months ago

@mhahsler We are so close! Can you please complete the author checklist above?

stats-tgeorge commented 2 months ago

@rudeboybert Thank you so much for getting back to this. This one was a big review and I appreciate your time!

mhahsler commented 2 months ago

@stats-tgeorge Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

[x] Double check authors and affiliations (including ORCIDs)
[x] Make a release of the software with the latest changes from the review and post the version number here. This is the version that will be used in the JOSE paper.
[x] Archive the release on Zenodo/figshare/etc and post the DOI here.
[x] Make sure that the title and author list (including ORCIDs) in the archive match those in the JOSE paper.
[x] Make sure that the license listed for the archive is the same as the software license.

Version Number: 1.0.1 (https://github.com/mhahsler/Introduction_to_Data_Mining_R_Examples/releases/tag/1.0.1) Archive: figshare DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.26750404.v1 Note on license: figshare only gives a choice for CC BY 4.0, while the book uses CC BY-NC 4.0. I can change everything to CC BY 4.0, if that is necessary.

openjournals / jose-reviews

[REVIEW]: An R Companion for Introduction to Data Mining #223

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

Review checklist for @rudeboybert

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Documentation

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

JOSE paper

Review checklist for @stats-tgeorge

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Documentation

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

JOSE paper

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance