Closed whedon closed 4 years ago
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @wjakethompson, @jrosen48, @markhwhiteii it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper :tada:.
:star: Important :star:
If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-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:
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
Attempting to check references...
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
OK DOIs
- 10.1037//1082-989X.7.4.468 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170903187665 may be missing for title: Factor Analytic Modeling of Within Person Variation in Score Profiles
- https://doi.org/10.1201/b20498 may be missing for title: Handbook of educational measurement and psychometrics using R
INVALID DOIs
- None
Hi, sorry for my delay on this. I will aim to proceed with my review this week.
Is there an update on the timeline for the review?
Hi, everyone!
@cddesja , sorry about the delayed reply, I'm still organizing myself after a few weeks out of office.
@wjakethompson , @jrosen48 and @markhwhiteii, let us know when you have the time to look into this review, ok? And please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the reviewing process.
Best regards
Marcos
Hi @marcosvital, I seem to be unable to check the checkbox items - can you advise if there is something I can do? thanks!
Hi @jrosen48 — did you receive an invitation to edit by email? You need to accept that to gain proper permissions on this issue. Let me know if you don't have the invitation.
Hi, I checked my email, but didn't see this! Is there any chance that you would be able to invite me again? Thank you!
@jrosen48 hm, check out the list up above under "Reviewer instructions & questions" and see if you have done both those things (being logged into github and it gives a page for invites).
doh, so sorry - thanks - that did it. I'm sorry!
I have completed my initial review. Overall, it looks like great package! A summary of why some boxes have not been checked:
@jrosen48 and @wjakethompson, I believe we have addressed all the outstanding issues. @jrosen48, please let us know if you think the state of the field has been described adequately.
@wjakethompson, we are wondering if the changes we've made are adequate for you and whether you have any additional changes?
@kthyng, we haven't heard back from @markhwhiteii. should we try and get another reviewer or if both @wjakethompson and @jrosen48 are satisfied with the state of the paper, is that sufficient?
@cddesja Everything looks good to me!
@cddesja Let's check with @marcosvital, who is the handling editor.
@marcosvital Did you want to have 3 reviewers for this submission in particular or are you ok with two?
Hi, @kthyng , yes, I'm comfortable with moving on with two reviews, as they are both satisfied with the paper.
@wjakethompson ad @jrosen48 , thank you both so much for taking time to review and make suggestions. @jrosen48, I noticed that there is one last box left unchecked in you review, regarding "Functionality documentation". Do you fell there is still something concerning this that the authors should address?
@cddesja , we are almost done here. Once we confirm that everything is ok to move forward, you will need to archive the last release of the package (on Zenodo, figshare, or other), if you already didn't do this, post the version number and archive DOI here in this issue.
@marcosvital, sounds good. Are you waiting on me, right now? Or are we waiting on
@jrosen48, I noticed that there is one last box left unchecked in you review, regarding "Functionality documentation". Do you fell there is still something concerning this that the authors should address?
Hi, @cddesja! I was waiting to know about the unchecked box. But since it's just a single item from the whole list, I'll make a final and quick check on everything myself, and we'll move on, ok? Will be back here soon.
Hello again, @cddesja, I think that everything seems ok, so let's proceed with our last steps towards acceptance!
@whedon generate pdf
@whedon check references
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- 10.1037//1082-989X.7.4.468 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170903187665 may be missing for title: Factor Analytic Modeling of Within Person Variation in Score Profiles
- https://doi.org/10.1201/b20498 may be missing for title: Handbook of educational measurement and psychometrics using R
- https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00978 may be missing for title: tidyLPA: An R package to easily carry out Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) using open-source or commercial software
- https://doi.org/10.32614/rj-2016-021 may be missing for title: mclust 5: clustering, classification and density estimation using Gaussian finite mixture models
INVALID DOIs
- None
@cddesja, please check out the manuscript references: they should have the DOIs listed, ok?
@markhwhiteii, as JOSS requires only two reviewers, we are proceeding with the paper acceptance. Since the reviewers are listed on the published paper, I'll remove your name from the list. I understand that taking time to review a paper is not easy, so thanks for trying to help with this one, and I hope we can count on you in future reviewing tasks.
@whedon remove @markhwhiteii as reviewer
OK, @markhwhiteii is no longer a reviewer
@cddesja, please check out the manuscript references: they should have the DOIs listed, ok?
@marcosvital, I fixed the missing DOIs in the paper. They all should be good now. Thank for catching that. We can probably re-combile the PDF and check it once more.
@marcosvital, I'd like to make a reference to our two vignettes included in the package by adding the following sentence bolded below. Is this okay? I'll add the citation to the paper.bib if this is fine.
The R package profileR
, currently in version 0.3-6 on the comprehensive R archive network (CRAN), implements profile reliability [@bulut2013between; @bulut2017], criterion-related profile analysis [@davison_identifying_2002], profile analysis via multidimensional scaling [@pams], moderated profile analysis, profile analysis by group, and a within-person factor model to derive score profiles [@davison2009factor] as well as a variety of graphical methods to visualize profiles. Related profile analysis packages exist in R, such as tidyLPA
[@rosenberg2019tidylpa] and mclust
[@mclust], as well as in Mplus [@muthen2004mplus], however, our approach does not rely on mixture modeling and aims to provide access to a wider range of profile analytic techniques. An extensive vignette documenting profileR
[@bulut2020] is included with the package as well as vignette to ensure the functionality of the package locally.
If this is fine with you, then I'll add this to the paper.md and bib file then I'll archive the package on Zendodo.
Dear authors and reviewers
We wanted to notify you that in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS has decided to suspend submission of new manuscripts and to handle existing manuscripts (such as this one) on a "best efforts basis". We understand that you may need to attend to more pressing issues than completing a review or updating a repository in response to a review. If this is the case, a quick note indicating that you need to put a "pause" on your involvement with a review would be appreciated but is not required.
Thanks in advance for your understanding.
Arfon Smith, Editor in Chief, on behalf of the JOSS editorial team.
@arfon, the paper is done. I posted the software on Zendodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3711046 Version: 0.3-6 The paper.md and paper.bib files are done.
👍 roger that @cddesja. We'll just wait to hear back from @marcosvital before finalizing the accept/publish steps.
Everything looks fine, so we can move on to acceptance! Let's make a final check on references and proof.
@whedon check references
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- 10.1037//1082-989X.7.4.468 is OK
- 10.1080/00273171.2016.1253452 is OK
- 10.1080/00273170903187665 is OK
- 10.1201/b20498 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00978 is OK
- 10.32614/rj-2016-021 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/sgy8m is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
@cddesja , there is a final invalid DOI. Can you check and correct it?
@cddesja @marcosvital , the invalid DOI has been fixed now. Thanks!
Can I look at the final proof just to make it looks okay? Thanks for fixing the DOI, Okan. Chris
On Mar 16, 2020, at 9:33 AM, Okan Bulut notifications@github.com wrote:
@cddesja @marcosvital , the invalid DOI has been fixed now. Thanks!
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
@whedon check references
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- 10.1037//1082-989X.7.4.468 is OK
- 10.1080/00273171.2016.1253452 is OK
- 10.1080/00273170903187665 is OK
- 10.1201/b20498 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00978 is OK
- 10.31234/osf.io/sgy8m is OK
- 10.32614/rj-2016-021 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
Thank you for correcting it, @okanbulut , everything seems fine!
@cddesja , I'll generate another proof.
@whedon generate pdf
Okay, I changed profileR to profileR
and uploaded the new paper.md.
Everything else looks good to me.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 10:22 AM whedon notifications@github.com wrote:
👉 Check article proof 📄 👈 https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/blob/joss.01941/joss.01941/10.21105.joss.01941.pdf
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/1941#issuecomment-599563335, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAMIZ2YSSVTHREFLRV6LL73RHYYZJANCNFSM4JZCQC7A .
Good! I'll start the final steps towards acceptance.
@whedon set 10.21105.joss.01941 as archive
10.21105.joss.01941 doesn't look like an archive DOI.
Submitting author: @cddesja (Christopher Desjardins) Repository: https://github.com/cddesja/profileR Version: v0.3-6 Editor: @marcosvital Reviewers: @wjakethompson, @jrosen48 Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3711046
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
@wjakethompson & @jrosen48 & @markhwhiteii , 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 @marcosvital know.
✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨
Review checklist for @wjakethompson
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
Review checklist for @jrosen48
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
Review checklist for @markhwhiteii
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper