[REVIEW]: rbmi: A R package for standard and reference-based multiple imputation methods

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@nociale@fboehm<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @DanielRivasMD, @JoranTiU Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.6632154

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c23a2dbed03cd0c8a1e790de9b078a7a"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c23a2dbed03cd0c8a1e790de9b078a7a/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c23a2dbed03cd0c8a1e790de9b078a7a/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c23a2dbed03cd0c8a1e790de9b078a7a)

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

@DanielRivasMD & @JoranTiU, 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://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @fboehm 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 @JoranTiU

📝 Checklist for @DanielRivasMD

editorialbot commented 2 years 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 2 years ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.20 s (472.0 files/s, 134722.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R                               65           3679           3808          12491
HTML                             3            107              6           2847
TeX                              2            101              0            768
Markdown                         5            187              0            652
Rmd                              3            395            761            452
YAML                            12            105             15            446
SAS                              1             36             22             81
JSON                             1              0              0             60
Dockerfile                       1              8              0             47
Bourne Shell                     1              4              1             34
C/C++ Header                     1              0              1              0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            95           4622           4614          17878
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 940

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1093/biomet/86.4.948 may be a valid DOI for title: Miscellanea. Small-sample degrees of freedom with multiple imputation
- 10.1177/0962280220932189 may be a valid DOI for title: Bootstrap inference for multiple imputation under uncongeniality and misspecification
- 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(20000515)19:9<1141::aid-sim479>3.0.co;2-f may be a valid DOI for title: Bootstrap confidence intervals: when, which, what? A practical guide for medical statisticians
- 10.1080/10543406.2013.834911 may be a valid DOI for title: Analysis of longitudinal trials with protocol deviation: a framework for relevant, accessible assumptions, and inference via multiple imputation
- 10.1111/rssa.12423 may be a valid DOI for title: Information-anchored sensitivity analysis: Theory and application
- 10.1002/sim.8569 may be a valid DOI for title: Sensitivity analysis for clinical trials with missing continuous outcome data using controlled multiple imputation: a practical guide
- 10.1002/pst.2019 may be a valid DOI for title: The attributable estimand: a new approach to account for intercurrent events
- 10.1080/07474930008800459 may be a valid DOI for title: Bootstrap tests: How many bootstraps?
- 10.1080/19466315.2020.1736141 may be a valid DOI for title: The Use of a Variable Representing Compliance Improves Accuracy of Estimation of the Effect of Treatment Allocation Regardless of Discontinuation in Trials with Incomplete Follow-up
- 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00447.x may be a valid DOI for title: What to do about missing values in time-series cross-section data
- 10.1214/aos/1043351257 may be a valid DOI for title: A unified jackknife theory for empirical best prediction with M-estimation
- 10.1080/10543406.2015.1094810 may be a valid DOI for title: On analysis of longitudinal clinical trials with missing data using reference-based imputation
- 10.1177/009286150804200402 may be a valid DOI for title: Recommendations for the primary analysis of continuous endpoints in longitudinal clinical trials
- 10.1177/2168479019836979 may be a valid DOI for title: Aligning estimators with estimands in clinical trials: putting the ICH E9 (R1) guidelines into practice
- 10.1093/biomet/58.3.545 may be a valid DOI for title: Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal
- 10.1080/19466315.2019.1689845 may be a valid DOI for title: Aligning Treatment Policy Estimands and Estimators—A Simulation Study in Alzheimer’s Disease
- 10.1080/10543406.2014.928306 may be a valid DOI for title: Comment on “Analysis of longitudinal trials with protocol deviations: A framework for relevant, accessible assumptions, and inference via multiple imputation,” by Carpenter, Roger, and Kenward
- 10.1080/10543401003777995 may be a valid DOI for title: MMRM versus MI in dealing with missing data—a comparison based on 25 NDA data sets
- 10.1177/0962280216683570 may be a valid DOI for title: Should multiple imputation be the method of choice for handling missing data in randomized trials?
- 10.1111/biom.12702 may be a valid DOI for title: On the multiple imputation variance estimator for control-based and delta-adjusted pattern mixture models
- 10.1214/20-sts793 may be a valid DOI for title: Maximum likelihood multiple imputation: Faster imputations and consistent standard errors without posterior draws
- 10.1093/biomet/85.4.935 may be a valid DOI for title: Large-sample theory for parametric multiple imputation procedures
- 10.1080/10543406.2019.1684308 may be a valid DOI for title: A causal modelling framework for reference-based imputation and tipping point analysis in clinical trials with quantitative outcome

INVALID DOIs

- None

fboehm commented 2 years ago

@DanielRivasMD and @JoranTiU - Please find above instructions for getting started with the reviews. The first task is to generate the checklists with the syntax mentioned above. Please let me know if you have any questions :)

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

fboehm commented 2 years ago

@DanielRivasMD and @JoranTiU - please feel free to generate your review checklists per the above syntax. Please let me know if you have any questions about this. Thanks!!

JoranTiU commented 2 years ago

Review checklist for @JoranTiU

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 https://github.com/insightsengineering/rbmi?
[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 (@nociale) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

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: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states 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?

DanielRivasMD commented 2 years ago

@fboehm I have checked the points on the checklist above and I imagine there is a way to generate this list and mark it

fboehm commented 2 years ago

@DanielRivasMD - please use the command

@editorialbot generate my checklist

Please let me know if you encounter difficulties in creating the checklist. Thanks again!

fboehm commented 2 years ago

@DanielRivasMD & @JoranTiU - how is the review going? Is there anything that I can help with? Thanks again!

DanielRivasMD commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

DanielRivasMD commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot commands

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Hello @DanielRivasMD, here are the things you can ask me to do:


# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

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

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

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

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

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

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

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

DanielRivasMD commented 2 years ago

Review checklist for @DanielRivasMD

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 https://github.com/insightsengineering/rbmi?
[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 (@nociale) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

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: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states 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?

DanielRivasMD commented 2 years ago

@fboehm Hi, my apologies it took so long to get back to this. Now, I have taken a deeper look into the source code (I had already read the paper and looked at the repo superficially) and tested the functionality. Overall, I think it is a pretty complete package, extensibly tested, good documentation and a use case attached as a dataset (indicated in the checklist that I hope you can see above ^). I have only three issues with this project, and not entirely certain whether they fit with JOSS criteria:

1) Community / contributors guidelines. There is only a link at the README to open issues, but no suggestions on format or further documentation. 2) The paper does not present state of the field for comparison with other software. 3) In order to use and test, dependencies must be installed. I would have like this to be documented at least if not automatically setup.

Please do not hesitate to come back if any point is unclear, or further issues must be discussed.

fboehm commented 2 years ago

Thank you, @DanielRivasMD ! I think that you make some good points in the comment. @nociale, please address the points that @DanielRivasMD made above:

Community / contributors guidelines. There is only a link at the README to open issues, but no suggestions on format or further documentation.
The paper does not present state of the field for comparison with other software.
In order to use and test, dependencies must be installed. I would have like this to be documented at least if not automatically setup.

Thank you!

JoranTiU commented 2 years ago

@DanielRivasMD & @JoranTiU - how is the review going? Is there anything that I can help with? Thanks again!

It's going well :). Should finish this week :)

JoranTiU commented 2 years ago

@fboehm Hi, I agree with @DanielRivasMD, it is a nice and pretty complete package with good documentation. The Vigenette's are also very helpful. Next to the points raised by @DanielRivasMD (i.e., (i) There is only a link at the README to open issues, but no suggestions on format or further documentation; (ii) The paper does not present state of the field for comparison with other software, and (iii) In order to use and test, dependencies must be installed.) I had the following minor remarks:

The examples provided with the functions can’t be directly run by the user (e.g., in the description of the “impute” function the example can’t be executed because the drawobj used in the example does not exist). This makes the examples less useful and also makes it harder to verify the package is working properly?
In description of “draws” function: “The imputation model is a mixed effects model repeated measures (MMRM) model.” Remove first instance of the word model.
In description of “draws” function: “It can be fit using frequentist maximum likelihood (ML) or restricted ML (REML)”. REML is also frequentist.
In quickstart vignette: “The analysis model is an ANCOVA model with the treatment group as the primary covariate and adjustment for the baseline HAMD17 score.” This suggests group is the covariate while it is the factor.

Overall though, as I said, like the package :).

Best, Joran

fboehm commented 2 years ago

@nociale - The reviews for your package are very positive. Please make the changes suggested or discuss them here in the thread. Thanks again!

fboehm commented 2 years ago

Thank you, @JoranTiU and @DanielRivasMD for your timely and thorough reviews. Once the suggestions are implemented, I'll ask you to verify that you're satisfied with the updates.

JoranTiU commented 2 years ago

You're very welcome @fboehm! 😊. And great! 😊

nociale commented 2 years ago

Hi @fboehm, @DanielRivasMD and @JoranTiU

Thanks a lot for appreciating the package and for the careful review. Please find below answers to the issues that you have pointed out.

About the issues pointed out by @DanielRivasMD and @fboehm here https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/4251#issuecomment-1094361800:

To inform users on recent updates about rbmi as well as provide contributors more information on how to contribute to the package, we have created two additional files: NEWS.md and CONTRIBUTING.md. The first keeps track of the rbmi version history. The second contains more detailed information about the development process which might be useful for potential contributors.
Could you please clarify what exactly is expected regarding the comparison with other softwares? The paper reports that we made a comparison with the SAS "5 macros" (https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/research/centres-projects-groups/missing-data#dia-missing-data). This includes the check of the results of the methodology based on Bayesian multiple imputation only, since this is the only method of rbmi that is also implemented in the mentioned macros. To our knowledge, no other publicly available software implements any of the other methods. Additionally, from the two papers that are mentioned in the manuscript (Wolbers et al (2021) and Noci et al (2021)) rbmi shows consistent results for all the methods implemented. In particular, in Wolbers et al (2021) (https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.11162), where the methods have been compared on a publicly available example dataset from an antidepressant clinical trial, the reported treatment effects estimates and standard errors are very similar to those obtained in Tang (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28407203/) on the same dataset using a different implementation. This dataset is also included in rbmi (?antidepressant_data for internal documentation).
Since rbmi has been uploaded on CRAN, one can install it via install.packages("rbmi"). All dependencies would automatically be installed. Moreover, we have added more information on rbmi main dependencies in the CONTRIBUTING.md file (sections "glmmTMB" and "rstan").

About the issues pointed out by @JoranTiU here https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/4251#issuecomment-1094959617:

We already have an open issue for the runnable examples here. This task is currently on our backlog of tasks to complete as its implementation isn’t trivial due to most functions being dependent on prior functions having been executed meaning examples are likely to be flabby and uninformative. Again this is something we are actively considering on how best to proceed with.
Thanks for suggesting the documentation enhancements at comments (2), (3), and (4). We have addressed them (this is the link to the pull request).

I am looking forward to hearing back from you. Kind regards, Alessandro

fboehm commented 2 years ago

@DanielRivasMD and @JoranTiU - Please see the authors' comments above. Please evaluate the revisions and continue the discussion with the authors to ensure that a final product meets the criteria. Please ask me questions as they arise. Be sure to check off items from the checklist once you feel that the requirement is met.

thanks again!!

DanielRivasMD commented 2 years ago

Hi all (@fboehm @nociale), apologies for the delay in this reply. In reply to the comments above:

1) I believe that adding such files to the community helps enormously to make this package a collective effort. I applaud such a resolution. 2) As a matter of fact, initially I did not review the references that the authors indicate above. However, they, in my personal opinion, provide enough evidence for comparison between this and other implementations. I leave it to the editors to decide whether this particular aspect is in coherence with the journal policy. 3) When I installed rbmi via install.packages() it errored due to a dependency, which is not unheard of in R. Nevertheless, I think that the newly provided documentation should suffice.

Thanks.

JoranTiU commented 2 years ago

Hi everyone (@fboehm @nociale) !

Apologies for my late reply too, I was on holiday last week ;).

I'm very happy and very satisfied with the changes :). The runnable examples would be nice, but the Vignette makes up for this to a large extend, so not having those definitely isn't a deal breaker as far as I'm concerned :).

Thanks for all the work and the great package :).

Best, Joran

fboehm commented 2 years ago

@JoranTiU and @DanielRivasMD - Thank you for continuing the reviews. If you're satisfied with the changes, please check off the corresponding boxes in the checklist. If you feel that more changes are needed, please specify them here. Thanks again!

JoranTiU commented 2 years ago

@JoranTiU and @DanielRivasMD - Thank you for continuing the reviews. If you're satisfied with the changes, please check off the corresponding boxes in the checklist. If you feel that more changes are needed, please specify them here. Thanks again!

Done! :)

DanielRivasMD commented 2 years ago

Me too.

fboehm commented 2 years ago

@JoranTiU and @DanielRivasMD - thank you for your thorough reviews.

@nociale - the reviewers have recommended your submission for publication. The next step is for me to proofread it. I'll do that in the next few days. I'll comment here with any changes that are needed.

fboehm commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

fboehm commented 2 years ago

@nociale - the manuscript looks great. I have no edits to offer on it. The one thing that remains before proceeding is to verify that the DOIs are accurate. I'll do that now. If I need you to add a DOI, I'll indicate it below.

fboehm commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1093/biomet/86.4.948 may be a valid DOI for title: Miscellanea. Small-sample degrees of freedom with multiple imputation
- 10.1177/0962280220932189 may be a valid DOI for title: Bootstrap inference for multiple imputation under uncongeniality and misspecification
- 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(20000515)19:9<1141::aid-sim479>3.0.co;2-f may be a valid DOI for title: Bootstrap confidence intervals: when, which, what? A practical guide for medical statisticians
- 10.1080/10543406.2013.834911 may be a valid DOI for title: Analysis of longitudinal trials with protocol deviation: a framework for relevant, accessible assumptions, and inference via multiple imputation
- 10.1111/rssa.12423 may be a valid DOI for title: Information-anchored sensitivity analysis: Theory and application
- 10.1002/sim.8569 may be a valid DOI for title: Sensitivity analysis for clinical trials with missing continuous outcome data using controlled multiple imputation: a practical guide
- 10.1002/pst.2019 may be a valid DOI for title: The attributable estimand: a new approach to account for intercurrent events
- 10.1080/07474930008800459 may be a valid DOI for title: Bootstrap tests: How many bootstraps?
- 10.1080/19466315.2020.1736141 may be a valid DOI for title: The Use of a Variable Representing Compliance Improves Accuracy of Estimation of the Effect of Treatment Allocation Regardless of Discontinuation in Trials with Incomplete Follow-up
- 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00447.x may be a valid DOI for title: What to do about missing values in time-series cross-section data
- 10.1214/aos/1043351257 may be a valid DOI for title: A unified jackknife theory for empirical best prediction with M-estimation
- 10.1080/10543406.2015.1094810 may be a valid DOI for title: On analysis of longitudinal clinical trials with missing data using reference-based imputation
- 10.1177/009286150804200402 may be a valid DOI for title: Recommendations for the primary analysis of continuous endpoints in longitudinal clinical trials
- 10.1177/2168479019836979 may be a valid DOI for title: Aligning estimators with estimands in clinical trials: putting the ICH E9 (R1) guidelines into practice
- 10.1093/biomet/58.3.545 may be a valid DOI for title: Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal
- 10.1080/19466315.2019.1689845 may be a valid DOI for title: Aligning Treatment Policy Estimands and Estimators—A Simulation Study in Alzheimer’s Disease
- 10.1080/10543406.2014.928306 may be a valid DOI for title: Comment on “Analysis of longitudinal trials with protocol deviations: A framework for relevant, accessible assumptions, and inference via multiple imputation,” by Carpenter, Roger, and Kenward
- 10.1080/10543401003777995 may be a valid DOI for title: MMRM versus MI in dealing with missing data—a comparison based on 25 NDA data sets
- 10.1177/0962280216683570 may be a valid DOI for title: Should multiple imputation be the method of choice for handling missing data in randomized trials?
- 10.1111/biom.12702 may be a valid DOI for title: On the multiple imputation variance estimator for control-based and delta-adjusted pattern mixture models
- 10.1214/20-sts793 may be a valid DOI for title: Maximum likelihood multiple imputation: Faster imputations and consistent standard errors without posterior draws
- 10.1093/biomet/85.4.935 may be a valid DOI for title: Large-sample theory for parametric multiple imputation procedures
- 10.1080/10543406.2019.1684308 may be a valid DOI for title: A causal modelling framework for reference-based imputation and tipping point analysis in clinical trials with quantitative outcome

INVALID DOIs

- None

fboehm commented 2 years ago

@nociale - please add dois to the cited references. I suggest removing from the bib file any references that aren't actually used in paper.md. It looks like you have 9 references in the pdf. We need only those to have accurate DOIs, if they're available. Thanks again!

fboehm commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1080/10543406.2013.834911 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.8569 is OK
- 10.1002/9781119013563 is OK
- 10.1214/20-STS793 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1002/pst.2234 may be a valid DOI for title: Standard and reference-based conditional mean imputation

INVALID DOIs

- None

fboehm commented 2 years ago

@nociale - Thank you for adding the DOIs. Can you please check to see if the above listed DOI is valid for the reference listed under "MISSING DOIs"? Please comment here with more information.

Thanks again!

nociale commented 2 years ago

Hi @fboehm

That reference under "MISSING DOIs" was recently published (May 19th, 2022). We have just added its DOI. I hope that is good now. I just double checked and the inserted DOI correctly links to the web page of the reference which is this one: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pst.2234.

Kind regards!

fboehm commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1080/10543406.2013.834911 is OK
- 10.1002/sim.8569 is OK
- 10.1002/9781119013563 is OK
- 10.1214/20-STS793 is OK
- 10.1002/pst.2234 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

fboehm commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

fboehm commented 2 years ago

the dois in the pdf all resolve to the correct targets.

fboehm commented 2 years ago

@nociale - great! Please make a tagged release of your package and archive it, for example, with zenodo. Please report here the version number for the release and the doi for the archive. Please let me know if I should provide instructions for either of these tasks. Thanks again!

fboehm commented 2 years ago

@nociale - are there any questions about the next steps? Once I get the archive doi and release version number, we should be ready to publish the submission.

nociale commented 2 years ago

@fboehm Please apologize for the large delay (I was on annual leave for a while). I provide below the information about version number of the release and the doi of the archive:

The archive: https://zenodo.org/record/6632154 (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6632154)
The github release: https://github.com/insightsengineering/rbmi/releases/tag/v1.1.4 (Version: 1.1.4)

I hope we addressed the tasks correctly, please let me know whether the information provided are enough or we need to provide something more.

Thanks! Kind regards, Alessandro

fboehm commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.6632154 as archive

openjournals / joss-reviews