[REVIEW]: niacin: A Python package for data enrichment

whedon commented 4 years ago

Submitting author: @deniederhut (Dillon Niederhut) Repository: https://github.com/deniederhut/niacin Version: 0.2.0 Editor: @oliviaguest Reviewer: @BayesforDays, @sara-02 Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3875715

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/386b739daf6c23ab4cdc9599ab3761aa"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/386b739daf6c23ab4cdc9599ab3761aa/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/386b739daf6c23ab4cdc9599ab3761aa/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/386b739daf6c23ab4cdc9599ab3761aa)

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

@BayesforDays & @sara-02, 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/joss-reviews/invitations

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

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨

Review checklist for @BayesforDays

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

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

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@deniederhut) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

Review checklist for @sara-02

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

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

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@deniederhut) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

kyleniemeyer commented 4 years ago

Hi @deniederhut, just a few minor copy edits:

In the second paragraph, could you define NLP on its first use?
Also, please add a comma after "e.g."
In paragraph 4, I think that it should be "disrupts" in the sentence starting with "Adding nuisance characaters..."
on second page, in the paragraph starting with "When possible, function documentation...", there is a missing "to" between "how apply"
also in that paragraph, "empirical" is misspelled
in the references, there are a few that need {} around words to ensure capitalization. The Miller 1995 reference needs the DOI (10.1145/219717.219748), and the Morris 2020 reference is missing some info

Let me know here when you've made those changes and I'll publish the article!

deniederhut commented 4 years ago

Okay, typos and capitalization fixed. I have a question about:

the Morris 2020 reference is missing some info

The bibliographic data is what was provided by the authors. The citation export on arxiv doesn't provide anything more, except the arxiv-specific subcategory. Is this what you meant?

kyleniemeyer commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

kyleniemeyer commented 4 years ago

@deniederhut for the Morris reference, I think the problem is that none of the arXiv info is showing properly. I'm not totally sure if our paper parser handles this, but could you try adding these fields?

archivePrefix = {arXiv},
eprint = {2005.05909},
primaryClass = {cs.CL},

If that doesn't work, then we can hack it by adding this field: howpublished = {\tt arXiv:2005.05909 [cs.CL]}

deniederhut commented 4 years ago

Ah maybe a capitalization issue in the field names? It should be fixed as of https://github.com/deniederhut/niacin/pull/29

kyleniemeyer commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

kyleniemeyer commented 4 years ago

@deniederhut sure, that will work

kyleniemeyer commented 4 years ago

@whedon accept

whedon commented 4 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon commented 4 years ago

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.18653/v1/D19-1670 is OK
- 10.3390/info11020108 is OK
- 10.3115/v1/D14-1162 is OK
- 10.1145/219717.219748 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon commented 4 years ago

:wave: @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1486

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1486, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

kyleniemeyer commented 4 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon commented 4 years ago

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

whedon commented 4 years ago

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

whedon commented 4 years ago

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1487
Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02136
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

sara-02 commented 4 years ago

Congrats @deniederhut :partying_face: :partying_face: Also, thanks @oliviaguest, this was my JOSS review looking forward to more!

oliviaguest commented 4 years ago

Congratulations @deniederhut! 🎉

Thank you again to the reviewers @BayesForDays and @sara-02 — don't forget to update your CVs if you have a service section. 😊

kyleniemeyer commented 4 years ago

Congrats @deniederhut on your article's publication in JOSS!

Many thanks to @BayesForDays and @sara-02 for reviewing this, and to @oliviaguest for editing.

whedon commented 4 years ago

:tada::tada::tada: Congratulations on your paper acceptance! :tada::tada::tada:

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02136/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02136)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02136">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02136/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02136/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02136

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

deniederhut commented 4 years ago

Woohoo! Thanks so much everyone!

openjournals / joss-reviews