[PRE REVIEW]: ARDL: An R package for the analysis of level relationships

[whedon]

Submitting author: @Natsiopoulos (Kleanthis Natsiopoulos) Repository: https://github.com/Natsiopoulos/ARDL Version: v0.1.1 Editor: @sbenthall Reviewers: @ha0ye, @jacobsoj Managing EiC: Kyle Niemeyer

:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @Natsiopoulos. Currently, there isn't an JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@Natsiopoulos if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

[whedon]

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

:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

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]

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[whedon]

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.05 s (413.8 files/s, 81191.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R                               14            177           1313           1561
Markdown                         4            144              0            503
Rmd                              1             53             83             48
TeX                              1              3              0             39
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            20            377           1396           2151
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statistical information for the repository '64831c22fa581fb86da03c82' was
gathered on 2021/02/05.
No commited files with the specified extensions were found.

[whedon]

Failed to discover a valid open source license.

[whedon]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1002/jae.616 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1371/journal.pone.0228812 may be a valid DOI for title: dLagM: An R package for distributed lag models and ARDL bounds testing

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

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

[kyleniemeyer]

Hello @Natsiopoulos, thanks for your interest in JOSS. We use this pre-review issue to identify an editor and reviewers, and also resolve any obvious issues.

Your repository is currently missing an open-source license file; I see in the DESCRIPTION file that you use the GPL-3 license, so please add this to the repo at the top level.

Also, your paper needs a Statement of Need section, which is a required element of the paper.

[kyleniemeyer]

Hi @sbenthall, could you edit this submission?

[kyleniemeyer]

@whedon invite @sbenthall as editor

[whedon]

@sbenthall has been invited to edit this submission.

[Natsiopoulos]

Hello @kyleniemeyer, thank you for accepting our submission.

On behalf of my coauthor, I have made the following changes.

• Added the license file.
• Added the Statement of Need section. The relative information was already there but as part of the summary.
• Added a reference about a recent publication that uses the software.

Thank you

[kyleniemeyer]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

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

[kyleniemeyer]

@whedon check repository

[whedon]

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.06 s (342.1 files/s, 67369.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R                               14            177           1313           1561
Markdown                         4            145              0            504
TeX                              1              4              0             50
Rmd                              1             53             83             48
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            20            379           1396           2163
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statistical information for the repository 'a4205f86284f5fe007d02bd5' was
gathered on 2021/02/08.
No commited files with the specified extensions were found.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@whedon invite @sbenthall as editor

[whedon]

@sbenthall has been invited to edit this submission.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@sbenthall could you help with this submission?

[kthyng]

Hi @Natsiopoulos and thanks for your submission! We currently have low editor availability in this area, so I am going to add the "waitlist" label until we are able to assign this submission to an editor. Thanks for your patience.

[Natsiopoulos]

Hello @kyleniemeyer, @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman, @kthyng, Thank you for helping with our submission.

Since this work is part of my PhD, and it's been over a month from the first submission, me and my coauthor and supervisor, we are wondering if you have an estimation about when the process is going to start? Could another editor be invited since sbenthall has not responded yet?

Thank you for your help

[kyleniemeyer]

Hello @Natsiopoulos, thanks for your patience. Unfortunately, many in our editorial board are still at reduced capacity right now, but submissions have not really slowed.

I will be looking for an alternative editor, but it may take a bit longer still as we work through the backlog.

[kyleniemeyer]

@whedon invite @kakiac as editor

Hi @kakiac, could you edit this?

[whedon]

@kakiac has been invited to edit this submission.

[kthyng]

Hi @Natsiopoulos! You are second on our waiting list for your submission's discipline. We have a handful of editors who could potentially handle it, but they are all occupied currently.

[danielskatz]

👋 @sbenthall - Are you able to edit this submission?

[danielskatz]

@whedon invite @sbenthall as editor

[whedon]

@sbenthall has been invited to edit this submission.

[sbenthall]

Sure, I'll be the editor for this.

[sbenthall]

@whedon assign me as editor

[whedon]

OK, the editor is @sbenthall

[sbenthall]

@mcavs would you be able to review this submission?

[sbenthall]

@pedro-teles-fonseca would you be able to review this submission?

[mcavs]

I am sorry that I don't have enough time for this now @sbenthall

[Natsiopoulos]

Hello @sbenthall, Thank you for being the editor of our submission. Searching through the reviewers list, we found some potential reviewers with relevant domain areas. These are: soodoku, tweed1e, ha0ye and taqtiqa-mark Also, alexpghayes seems to have an interest in reviewing the interface and documentation which we consider a big advantage of our package. Thank you

[sbenthall]

Thank you @Natsiopoulos that's very helpful!

@taqtiqa-mark would you be willing to review this package?

@ha0ye would you be willing to review this package?

[sbenthall]

@Natsiopoulos are you suggesting that @alexpghayes be asked to review the package for JOSS? In any case, of course you may take additional input from others and @alexpghayes is welcome to use the review issue to provide additional feedback. We will need to keep the official review process focused on the two formally chosen reviewers.

[alexpghayes]

I can't review at the moment, but the package looks interesting! Good luck!

[ha0ye]

@sbenthall - I can commit to a review by end of May, if that works for the general timeline of things.

[sbenthall]

That works great, @ha0ye Thank you!

@whedon assign @ha0ye as reviewer

[sbenthall]

@tweed1e would you be able to review this package?

[sbenthall]

@whedon assign @ha0ye as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, @ha0ye is now a reviewer

[sbenthall]

@soodoku would you be able to review this package?

[taqtiqa-mark]

@sbenthall, Apologies for the delay in responding to your request. Unfortunately I can't take on another commitment right now.

[ha0ye]

@sbenthall - I can commit to a review by end of May, if that works for the general timeline of things.

Ok, lost track of time, but will start tomorrow, and target next week to submit my review.

[soodoku]

hi @sbenthall: too many other commitments for now so i must decline.

[sbenthall]

@ha0ye Thank you! We are a little backed up in the process because we need to find a second reviewer. But if you do your review soon, you can submit it once the second reviewer is found.

Do you have the review checklist available?

[sbenthall]

@Darthpathos would you be able to review this package?

[ha0ye]

@ha0ye Thank you! We are a little backed up in the process because we need to find a second reviewer. But if you do your review soon, you can submit it once the second reviewer is found.

Do you have the review checklist available?

Yep, I've reviewed for JOSS before, as well as used the rOpenSci checklist in a separate setting.

[Darthpathos]

@Darthpathos would you be able to review this package?

Hi @sbenthall - Unfortunately I don't anything about economics (I'm in healthcare). Please let me know if you have any packages needing review for clinical trials, medical research, etc. :)