Closed whedon closed 4 years ago
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @jayrobwilliams, @paulgovan 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
PDF failed to compile for issue #2111 with the following error:
Can't find any papers to compile :-(
hi @donaldRwilliams -- could you take a look at your repo and put the paper.md file in the root of your repository, so that we can generate a PDF automatically ?
Hi: Apologies on the delay. I added the paper.md file to the root of the repository.
There are several issues with this submission. Please reference the links above.
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.
I've completed my initial review. I largely agree with @paulgovan, but have noted a couple of other issues on the package repo. I'm also going to attempt to compile the paper as it's currently missing.
@whedon generate pdf
:wave: @donaldRwilliams, just a friendly check-in to see how things are going with your responses to the review feedback here?
@arfon Hi. thank you for this check in. We are currently working on updating the documentation per the reviewers suggestions to include actual examples of hypotheses one can test.
@arfon @jayrobwilliams @paulgovan
I wanted to check in once more. We had received reviews for one of the methods that is implemented in the package (generally favorable) and we just finished that up. We also decided to follow the suggestions of @paulgovan to (1) make the paper more of a high level summary; and (2) also include real world examples (this was also suggested in the review).
Anyhow, we expect to have this completed by the end of next week.
Thanks !
:wave: @donaldRwilliams - just a friendly check in to see if you've managed to make these updates yet. JOSS is now reopen for submissions so we're actively trying to wrap up existing reviews.
Hi: Sounds good. Just now finished making the rather large changes to the documentation, README, etc. Will have the paper updated by end of the week
@arfon
We updated the paper. Note the package has undergone extensive changes, including rewriting all the algorithms in c++
, adding support for binary, ordinal, and mixed data, linked to Travis, etc.
As for the reviewer comments, we extensively rewrote the documentation to include many examples, added to Travis, and most notably shortened the paper to be a "high-level" overview. Also made a website with more extensive implementations that is linked to github pages (with pkgdown
).
@whedon generate pdf
:+1: thanks for the update @donaldRwilliams!
@jayrobwilliams, @paulgovan - when you're ready, it sounds like this submission is ready for you both to take another look.
@arfon doing so now
@whedon generate pdf
@whedon generate pdf
@donaldRwilliams - did you latest updates address many of the comments opened by the reviewers (e.g. https://github.com/donaldRwilliams/BGGM/issues/3, https://github.com/donaldRwilliams/BGGM/issues/4, https://github.com/donaldRwilliams/BGGM/issues/6)? If so, perhaps you could leave comments on those issues (and close them if appropriate) to help us all understand what changes have been made?
@arfon I think I have indeed made all the changes, besides the "statement of need". I am working on that now..
@arfon I left comments on those issues and also closed them (I think this was fine, but can always re open if needed).
@arfon @akeshavan I have completed my review and recommend this paper for publication.
:+1: thanks @jayrobwilliams! @paulgovan - when do you think you might be able to come and take another look at this?
Just a quick note that I emailed @paulgovan just now to see when they might be able to complete their review.
Sorry for the delay. I see several issues related to the paper that are still open. My thought is that these should be closed before moving forward with publication. @arfon @akeshavan do you agree?
Sorry for the delay. I see several issues related to the paper that are still open. My thought is that these should be closed before moving forward with publication. @arfon @akeshavan do you agree?
Yes, I agree, although it looks like almost all of them have been addressed and that @donaldRwilliams might just need to close those issues. The one I see that is still unresolved is https://github.com/donaldRwilliams/BGGM/issues/10 - could you confirm what is happening there @donaldRwilliams?
@arfon I just closed this issue, as it was addressed sometime ago.
@donaldRwilliams - to help our reviewers (and me), could you state on the issues that are still open as part of this review what actions you have taken and (if appropriate) close them. The issues I still see open here are: https://github.com/donaldRwilliams/BGGM/issues/3 https://github.com/donaldRwilliams/BGGM/issues/7 https://github.com/donaldRwilliams/BGGM/issues/8
Thanks!
@arfon I went through and noted the changes. I think we followed the advice in the reviewers in all cases, and we noted the changes accordingly in the issue. They are all now closed as well.
@arfon I went through and noted the changes. I think we followed the advice in the reviewers in all cases, and we noted the changes accordingly in the issue. They are all now closed as well.
Excellent, thanks @donaldRwilliams
@paulgovan - could ask you to take one more quick look at this (and update your checklist accordingly) now that the author has resolved all of the outstanding issues? 🙏
@arfon, @akeshavan, sure thing. I've reviewed the paper again and also recommend moving forward with publication. These are great improvements.
@whedon check references
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- 10.3758/s13423-016-1221-4 is OK
- 10.1177/0013164416669201 is OK
- 10.31234/OSF.IO/X8DPR is OK
- 10.31234/osf.io/ypxd8 is OK
- 10.1080/00031305.2018.1549100 is OK
- 10.1214/17-BA1092 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2007.09.008 may be missing for title: Bayesian model determination for multivariate ordinal and binary data
- https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000446 may be missing for title: What do centrality measures measure in psychological networks?
- https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/pg4mf may be missing for title: Problems with centrality measures in psychopathology symptom networks: Why network psychometrics cannot escape psychometric theory
- https://doi.org/10.1214/009053606000000821 may be missing for title: Can one estimate the conditional distribution of post-model-selection estimators?
- https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/yt386 may be missing for title: Comparing Gaussian graphical models with the posterior predictive distribution and Bayesian model selection.
- https://doi.org/10.1214/07-aoas107 may be missing for title: Extending the rank likelihood for semiparametric copula estimation
- https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/ksfyr may be missing for title: The Bayesian New Statistics: Hypothesis testing, estimation, meta-analysis, and power analysis from a Bayesian perspective
- https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000201 may be missing for title: A tutorial on testing hypotheses using the Bayes factor.
- https://doi.org/10.1080/10618600.2012.679239 may be missing for title: Efficient Bayesian inference for multivariate probit models with sparse inverse correlation matrices
- https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1993.10476321 may be missing for title: Bayesian analysis of binary and polychotomous response data
- https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00162520 may be missing for title: Accelerating Monte Carlo Markov chain convergence for cumulative-link generalized linear models
- https://doi.org/10.1191/1471082x04st063oa may be missing for title: MCMC model determination for discrete graphical models
- https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478640 may be missing for title: Evaluating logistic models for large contingency tables
- https://doi.org/10.21236/ada241408 may be missing for title: Model selection and accounting for model uncertainty in graphical models using Occam’s window
- https://doi.org/10.1198/004017008000000064 may be missing for title: Bayesian inference for multivariate ordinal data using parameter expansion
- https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00026 may be missing for title: Armadillo: a template-based C++ library for linear algebra
- https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/p69m7 may be missing for title: A network analysis of DSM-5 posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and correlates in US military veterans
- https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176346785 may be missing for title: Bayesianly justifiable and relevant frequency calculations for the applied statistician
- https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/zw7pf may be missing for title: On Formalizing Theoretical Expectations: Bayesian Testing of Central Structures in Psychological Networks
- https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0910-x may be missing for title: How well do network models predict observations? On the importance of predictability in network models
- https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2019.1614898 may be missing for title: Bridge centrality: A network approach to understanding comorbidity
- https://doi.org/10.1214/13-ejs854 may be missing for title: Two simple examples for understanding posterior p-values whose distributions are far from uniform
- https://doi.org/10.1109/vetecs.2005.1543265 may be missing for title: Correlation matrix distance, a meaningful measure for evaluation of non-stationary MIMO channels
- https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i04 may be missing for title: qgraph: Network visualizations of relationships in psychometric data
- https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v089.i03 may be missing for title: BDgraph: An R package for Bayesian structure learning in graphical models
- https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01050 may be missing for title: Using a Gaussian graphical model to explore relationships between items and variables in environmental psychology research
- https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2020.1716673 may be missing for title: Use of Composites in Analysis of Individual Time Series: Implications for Person-Specific Dynamic Parameters
- https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/4kfjp may be missing for title: Bayesian Multivariate Mixed-Effects Location Scale Modeling of Longitudinal Relations among Affective Traits, States, and Physical Activity
- https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4870402 may be missing for title: A Gaussian graphical model approach to climate networks
- https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-0509-3-55 may be missing for title: A graphical model approach for inferring large-scale networks integrating gene expression and genetic polymorphism
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s41109-020-0251-z may be missing for title: Partial correlation financial networks
- https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxt005 may be missing for title: Sparse time series chain graphical models for reconstructing genetic networks
INVALID DOIs
- 10.1.1.142.9951 is INVALID
@donaldRwilliams - could you take a look at the DOIs suggested by Whedon above and add them to your BibTeX file if they are correct.
@whedon check references
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- 10.3758/s13423-016-1221-4 is OK
- 10.1177/0013164416669201 is OK
- 10.31234/OSF.IO/X8DPR is OK
- 10.31234/osf.io/ypxd8 is OK
- 10.1080/00031305.2018.1549100 is OK
- 10.1016/j.csda.2007.09.008 is OK
- 10.1037/abn0000446 is OK
- 10.1080/00273171.2019.1640103 is OK
- 10.1214/009053606000000821 is OK
- 10.1037/met0000254 is OK
- 10.1214/17-BA1092 is OK
- 10.1214/07-AOAS107 is OK
- 10.3758/s13423-016-1221-4 is OK
- 10.1037/met0000201 is OK
- 10.1080/10618600.2012.679239 is OK
- 10.1080/01621459.1993.10476321 is OK
- 10.1007/bf00162520 is OK
- 10.1191/1471082x04st063oa is OK
- 10.1080/01621459.1988.10478640 is OK
- 10.21236/ada241408 is OK
- 10.1198/004017008000000064 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00026 is OK
- 10.31234/osf.io/p69m7 is OK
- 10.1214/aos/1176346785 is OK
- 10.31234/osf.io/zw7pf is OK
- 10.3758/s13428-017-0910-x is OK
- 10.1214/13-ejs854 is OK
- 10.1109/vetecs.2005.1543265 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v048.i04 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v089.i03 is OK
- fpsyg.2019.01050 is OK
- 10.1080/00273171.2020.1716673 is OK
- 10.31234/osf.io/4kfjp is OK
- 10.1063/1.4870402 is OK
- 10.1186/1752-0509-3-55 is OK
- 10.1007/s41109-020-0251-z is OK
- 10.1093/biostatistics/kxt005 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- 0.1080/00273171.2019.1614898 is INVALID
@whedon check references
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- 10.3758/s13423-016-1221-4 is OK
- 10.1177/0013164416669201 is OK
- 10.31234/OSF.IO/X8DPR is OK
- 10.31234/osf.io/ypxd8 is OK
- 10.1080/00031305.2018.1549100 is OK
- 10.1016/j.csda.2007.09.008 is OK
- 10.1037/abn0000446 is OK
- 10.1080/00273171.2019.1640103 is OK
- 10.1214/009053606000000821 is OK
- 10.1037/met0000254 is OK
- 10.1214/17-BA1092 is OK
- 10.1214/07-AOAS107 is OK
- 10.3758/s13423-016-1221-4 is OK
- 10.1037/met0000201 is OK
- 10.1080/10618600.2012.679239 is OK
- 10.1080/01621459.1993.10476321 is OK
- 10.1007/bf00162520 is OK
- 10.1191/1471082x04st063oa is OK
- 10.1080/01621459.1988.10478640 is OK
- 10.21236/ada241408 is OK
- 10.1198/004017008000000064 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00026 is OK
- 10.31234/osf.io/p69m7 is OK
- 10.1214/aos/1176346785 is OK
- 10.31234/osf.io/zw7pf is OK
- 10.3758/s13428-017-0910-x is OK
- 10.1080/00273171.2019.1614898 is OK
- 10.1214/13-ejs854 is OK
- 10.1109/vetecs.2005.1543265 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v048.i04 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v089.i03 is OK
- fpsyg.2019.01050 is OK
- 10.1080/00273171.2020.1716673 is OK
- 10.31234/osf.io/4kfjp is OK
- 10.1063/1.4870402 is OK
- 10.1186/1752-0509-3-55 is OK
- 10.1007/s41109-020-0251-z is OK
- 10.1093/biostatistics/kxt005 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
@arfon I updated the .bib file. Quite nice that the dois were all provided. Thanks !
@whedon generate pdf
@donaldRwilliams - At this point could you make a new release of this software that includes the changes that have resulted from this review. Then, please make an archive of the software in Zenodo/figshare/other service and update this thread with the DOI of the archive? For the Zenodo/figshare archive, please make sure that:
I can then move forward with accepting the submission.
@arfon I uploaded the new release of the software.
Here is the doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3954503
@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3954503 as archive
OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3954503 is the archive.
Submitting author: @donaldRwilliams (Donald Williams ) Repository: https://github.com/donaldRwilliams/BGGM Version: 1.0.0 Editor: @akeshavan Reviewer: @jayrobwilliams, @paulgovan Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3954503
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
@jayrobwilliams & @paulgovan, 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 @akeshavan know.
✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨
Review checklist for @jayrobwilliams
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
Review checklist for @paulgovan
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper