[PRE REVIEW]: NiaARM: A minimalistic framework for Numerical Association Rule Mining

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@zStupan@fabian-s<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @diegomcarvalho, @timClicks Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c463434452b371917a2a169dbddecf32"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c463434452b371917a2a169dbddecf32/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c463434452b371917a2a169dbddecf32/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c463434452b371917a2a169dbddecf32)

Author instructions

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

@zStupan 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 @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Hello human, 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=0.09 s (651.0 files/s, 39897.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          23            344            295           1107
Markdown                        11            213              0            494
reStructuredText                17            196            231            329
TeX                              2             14              0            181
SVG                              1              0              1             65
YAML                             2              7              0             60
JSON                             1              0              0             47
TOML                             1              6              0             32
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            60            792            535           2350
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 577

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-030-03493-1_9 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-68154-8_19 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2010.15524 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00613 is OK
- 10.1109/69.846291 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ins.2020.02.073 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-62362-3_10 is OK
- 10.1007/s12652-019-01540-7 is OK
- 10.1007/978-981-33-4370-2_1 is OK
- 10.1007/s42979-021-00725-2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.asoc.2007.05.003 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

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:

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

👋 @zStupan - thanks for your submission. Due to the relatively small amount of code, the editors will now discuss if it meets the substantial scholarly effort criterion for review by JOSS. You should hear back in a week or so.

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot query scope

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Submission flagged for editorial review.

zStupan commented 2 years ago

@danielskatz Are there any updates regarding our submission?

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

I'll let the AEiC on duty this week (@openjournals/joss-eics) answer

arfon commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot invite @fabian-s as editor

:wave: @fabian-s – would you be willing to edit this submission for us?

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

fabian-s commented 2 years ago

Sorry for the delay, i was travelling. I think I can handle this :)

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot assign @fabian-s as editor

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Assigned! @fabian-s is now the editor

fabian-s commented 2 years ago

@zStupan if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @)

fabian-s commented 2 years ago

:wave: @hvgazula @diegomcarvalho, would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

zStupan commented 2 years ago

@fabian-s Sorry for the late response. My suggestions for potential reviewers are: chkoar, juliensiebert and ahurriyetoglu. I agree with your suggestions as well.

fabian-s commented 2 years ago

:wave: @juliensiebert @ahurriyetoglu would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

fabian-s commented 2 years ago

:wave: @chkoar @ortega2247 @juliensiebert @ahurriyetoglu @hvgazula @diegomcarvalho would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

zStupan commented 2 years ago

@fabian-s can I suggest additional reviewers, since there haven't been any responses?

fabian-s commented 2 years ago

@fabian-s can I suggest additional reviewers, since there haven't been any responses?

yes, please, that would be great. sorry for these delays, it's unfortunately become rather difficult to find reviewers...

fabian-s commented 2 years ago

:wave: @chkoar @ortega2247 would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

zStupan commented 2 years ago

@fabian-s no problem. My additional suggestions are jkahn, dvysardana, timClicks and trallard

fabian-s commented 2 years ago

:wave: @timClicks @trallard would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

diegomcarvalho commented 2 years ago

Hi, I’m available. Sorry for the delay… All the best, d.c

Prof. Diego Carvalho, D.Sc

Associate Professor / Production Engineering Department Graduate Programme in Production Engineering and Systems Federal Centre for Engineering Studies and Technological Education - CEFET/RJ Av. Maracanã, 229 - Maracanã Rio de Janeiro - RJ - 20271-110 - Brasil/Brazil/Brésil Il sudore non e santo, ma fa miracoli. :wq

what3words pt:dueto.digite.caco en:blazed.nurses.gazed On 1 Jun 2022 05:05 -0300, zStupan @.***>, wrote:

@fabian-s can I suggest additional reviewers, since there hasn't been any responses? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

fabian-s commented 2 years ago

@diegomcarvalho great, thx!

fabian-s commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot add @diegomcarvalho as reviewer

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

@diegomcarvalho added to the reviewers list!

trallard commented 2 years ago

Sorry folks I am currently swamped so won't have capacity for this review

diegomcarvalho commented 2 years ago

Review checklist for @diegomcarvalho

Conflict of interest

[ ] 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

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

General checks

[ ] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/firefly-cpp/NiaARM?
[ ] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[ ] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@zStupan) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[ ] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

Functionality

[ ] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[ ] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[ ] 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

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

[ ] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[ ] 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?
[ ] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[ ] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[ ] 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?

fabian-s commented 2 years ago

@diegomcarvalho that was an early start -- we have to wait until I find another reviewer before we start the review process, that will be done in another Github issue that we haven't openend yet. This here is just the PRE-REVIEW issue... ;)

diegomcarvalho commented 2 years ago

Sorry for the inconvenience… It is my first review… I’ll be waiting… All the best, d.c On 2 Jun 2022 07:08 -0300, Fabian Scheipl @.***>, wrote:

@diegomcarvalho that was an early start -- we have to wait until I find another reviewer before we start the review process, that will be done in another Github issue that we haven't openend yet. This here is just the PRE-REVIEW issue... ;) — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

timClicks commented 2 years ago

Yes, I am happy to review the paper. Thank you for the invitation @fabian-s.

fabian-s commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot add @timClicks as reviewer

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

@timClicks added to the reviewers list!

fabian-s commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot start review

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/4448.

openjournals / joss-reviews