[PRE REVIEW]: Missingno: a missing data visualization suite

[whedon]

Submitting author: @ResidentMario (Aleksey Bilogur) Repository: https://github.com/ResidentMario/missingno Version: 0.3.7 Editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Reviewer: @rhiever

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @ResidentMario. The JOSS editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@ResidentMario if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission.

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. I'm here to help you with some common editorial tasks for JOSS.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

PDF failed to compile for issue #443 with the following error: 

 pandoc-citeproc: Could not find paper.bib
CallStack (from HasCallStack):
  error, called at src/Text/CSL/Pandoc.hs:224:39 in pandoc-citeproc-0.10.4-BdOyQb33rzG2TMOLj4Fbp9:Text.CSL.Pandoc
pandoc: Error running filter pandoc-citeproc
Filter returned error status 1
Looks like we failed to compile the PDF

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@arfon if there are no references, do we need an empty paper.bib file?

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@pzwang @rhiever @tacaswell @wesm @jreback @bryevdv is this JOSS submission your cup of tea? Would you be willing to review this?

[arfon]

@arfon if there are no references, do we need an empty paper.bib file?

I guess not but in this case the paper.md file should not be pointing to a paper.bib file that doesn't exist. IMO the current paper is rather too brief and lacking context. I'd encourage the author to flesh this out (and perhaps cite related work/packages?)

[wesm]

I don't have the bandwidth to help unfortunately

[ResidentMario]

I'm happy to edit the write-up for content, I wasn't too sure how much is enough or too much. In terms of citations, there's an R package that was inspired by this Python package here, as well as this blog post describing the issue the package tackles more generally. Hopefully that can cover references.

[rhiever]

Same as @wesm - bad time of the year for me. If you still need a review in mid-January, please feel free to ping me again.

[bryevdv]

Sorry, I am in the middle of a selling a house and moving across the country, I am too swamped. Additionally I don't feel especially qualified to comment on MPL related things.

[arfon]

👋 @rhiever - we're still looking for a reviewer for this submission. Any chance we could take you up on your offer 😁

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@whedon assign @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman as editor

[whedon]

OK, the editor is @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@zkamvar would you be interested in reviewing this submission for JOSS?

[rhiever]

What type of review is needed - code review? Functionality review? I don't see a full paper attached to this submission.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@rhiever thanks for your reply. We are currently in a pre-review issue. If you agree to review I'll open a review issue and you'll be able to see the paper as well (the author here still needs to update their paper).

Here is an example of a review issue with 3 reviewers taking part. Essentially reviewers tick boxes at the top of the review issue. From the tickboxes you can see most of the review focuses on the software functionality and documentation.

Papers are typically very short (e.g. see the paper submitted to the review issue I linked to).

You can also read more about our reviewer guidelines.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@ResidentMario please expand your paper as per our guidelines. You can also check out some accepted papers to get a better picture of the content and level of detail presented in them.

[rhiever]

OK, I can act as a reviewer on this paper.

[ResidentMario]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman :+1: To review the status of this submission, I've gotten a smattering inquiries on how to cite this library, and this seemed like the perfect venue to achieve that. I made a pretty minimal submission to test the waters. Very happy to flush it out more.

[zkamvar]

Hello! Yes, I would be happy to review this.

Caveats:

1. I am primarily an R developer and use python on more of a monthly basis.
2. I am the author of the R package that @ResidentMario mentioned in this comment (Though I don't see a citation necessary as the name was derived from a pokemon glitch).

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

Great. Two reviewers is perfect. I'll open the review issue with @rhiever as first reviewer. I'll then also add @zkamvar as second reviewer. Here we go.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@whedon assign @rhiever as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, the reviewer is @rhiever

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@whedon start review magic-word=bananas

[whedon]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/547. Feel free to close this issue now!

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

Okay review has started over at #547.