[PRE REVIEW]: floodlight - A high-level, data-driven sports analytics framework

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@draabe<!--end-author-handle-- (Dominik Raabe) Repository: https://github.com/floodlight-sports/floodlight Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper Version: 0.3.2 Editor: !--editor-->@crvernon<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: !--reviewers-list-->@gagolews<!--end-reviewers-list-- Managing EiC: Kyle Niemeyer

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4316da64910988e4d7b148fe3ed5db96"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4316da64910988e4d7b148fe3ed5db96/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4316da64910988e4d7b148fe3ed5db96/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4316da64910988e4d7b148fe3ed5db96)

Author instructions

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

@draabe 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]

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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.12 s (873.8 files/s, 122726.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          49           1828           3627           6475
reStructuredText                41            616            696            589
Markdown                         8            160              0            488
TeX                              1             20              0            268
YAML                             5             21             10            122
TOML                             1              9              1             74
make                             1              4              7              9
CSS                              1              0              1              4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           107           2658           4342           8029
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/3475722.3482792 is OK
- 10.2165/00007256-200838030-00005 is OK
- 10.1080/02640410903503640 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1309.0238 is OK
- 10.1007/s40279-014-0144-3 is OK
- 10.1055/a-0592-7660 is OK
- 10.1080/17461391.2020.1747552 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1177/1747954119879350 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1080/02640414.2012.746720 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a is OK
- 10.4324/9781351210164 is OK
- 10.4324/9781003160953 is OK
- 10.1007/s41060-017-0093-7 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.88.6.2297 is OK
- 10.1186/s40064-016-3108-2 is OK
- 10.1055/s-0031-1301320 is OK
- 10.3390/data2010002 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1411

[editorialbot]

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

[kyleniemeyer]

Hi @draabe, we will use this pre-review issue to find an editor and reviewers for your submission. Any suggestions you have for the latter are welcome.

Hi @crvernon, could you edit this submission? I realize the topic is a bit outside your application areas, but the authors pointed out that the analyses are similar to geospatial analysis.

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot invite @crvernon as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[crvernon]

@editorialbot assign @crvernon as editor

Happy to help!

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @crvernon is now the editor

[crvernon]

👋 @draabe - I'll be your topic editor for this submission.

The first step in this pre-review is to find at least 2 reviewers. 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).

[draabe]

Hi @crvernon and thank you for editing this submission. Really appreciate this, especially as the application area might not be your no. 1 topic!

I've checked the list for reviewers preferring Python with some keywords and found (from bottom to top)

sport: gagolews, mado89

exercise, training, collective behavio(u)r, spatio(-)temporal, football, soccer, basketball, handball, hockey: -

I don't think that the overall complexity of the domain-specific algorithms (with one exception) is such that only a domain expert can understand it, so I also searched for general data science. The first five results from the bottom of the list are:

MaximLippeveld, epiben, ziiiyang, lepisma, FilipeChagasDev

I hope that's a good starting point, let me know if you need anything else!

[crvernon]

👋 - @gagolews Would you be willing to review this submission to 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

[crvernon]

👋 - @lepisma Would you be willing to review this submission to 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

[gagolews]

I agree to take on this one.

[crvernon]

@editorialbot add @gagolews as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@gagolews added to the reviewers list!

[gagolews]

@crvernon Will there be a separate GH Issue where I can submit the review?

[crvernon]

Yes @gagolews we generally wait until we have at least two confirmed reviewers before we move to full review. If I can't get another soon, I'll go ahead and start it up and so you can generate your checklist and get started. Thanks!

[draabe]

@crvernon I was wondering if there was a general guideline on how to proceed with minor patches and additions to the package that occur (independently) while the review process is going on? There are a few tiny fixes we found and are currently also discussing the addition of some smaller complementary features and I'm a bit unsure on how to proceed. Thanks!

[kyleniemeyer]

@draabe it would be ideal if things don't change much during the review, particularly in terms of functionality. Could that work be done on a branch that becomes a new version following review of the current version? (In contrast, if these are important fixes, then it might be best to pause the review until they are complete.)

[draabe]

thanks for the reply, @kyleniemeyer! we'll follow your first suggestion and won't change the package during review. the bug fixes we found are rather cosmetic, so there's nothing urgent right now.

[crvernon]

:wave: @kanishkan91 - Would you be willing to review this submission to 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

[kanishkan91]

@crvernon Yup. Can do it. Though will start on the 22nd and will take two weeks from then. Is that ok?

[crvernon]

Sounds great @kanishkan91 !

[crvernon]

👋 Alright @draabe @gagolews @kanishkan91 - I am going to close this Pre-Review and kick off the full review which you should receive a notification for. Thanks!

[crvernon]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/4588.