[REVIEW]: SigCorr: A Python package for studies of trials factors

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@vindex10<!--end-author-handle-- (Viktor Ananiev) Repository: https://gitlab.com/sigcorr/sigcorr Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss22 Version: 4.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@osorensen<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @BSGalvan, @peifengjing, @gvieralopez Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8096892

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ba9741aeb587d6c3a9b49522a2dc8f8e"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ba9741aeb587d6c3a9b49522a2dc8f8e/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ba9741aeb587d6c3a9b49522a2dc8f8e/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ba9741aeb587d6c3a9b49522a2dc8f8e)

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

@BSGalvan & @peifengjing 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 @osorensen 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 @BSGalvan

📝 Checklist for @gvieralopez

📝 Checklist for @peifengjing

[editorialbot]

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

[osorensen]

Thanks for responding so quickly @vindex10! @peifengjing and @gvieralopez, when you have time, could you please check this response and see if it addresses your concerns? Thank you.

[peifengjing]

Hi @osorensen, I have confirmed that my concerns have been addressed. The current version appears excellent to me!

[osorensen]

@gvieralopez, when you have time, could you please check if the updates made by @vindex10 address your concerns, and update your review checklist accordingly? Thank you.

[osorensen]

@BSGalvan, you have one unchecked item in your review checklist. Could you please check if the updates made by @vindex10 address your concerns? If so, please check the item in your list, if not, please elaborate what needs to be done. Thank you!

[osorensen]

👋 @sajanbhagat, could you please update us on how it's going with your review?

[gvieralopez]

@gvieralopez, when you have time, could you please check if the updates made by @vindex10 address your concerns, and update your review checklist accordingly? Thank you.

Dear @osorensen, my checklist is up to date with changes made by @vindex10. My previous concerns were addressed. I only need to finish testing the software tutorial for finishing my review.

[osorensen]

Thanks a lot @gvieralopez!

[BSGalvan]

@BSGalvan, you have one unchecked item in your review checklist. Could you please check if the updates made by @vindex10 address your concerns? If so, please check the item in your list, if not, please elaborate what needs to be done. Thank you!

Hello! In the process of ticking that item off, I hit a slight hitch (related to changes introduced in Python 3.11), which I have recorded as an issue here. That being said, I was able to verify the other functionality satisfactorily by using Python 3.10, and will be finishing off my checklist once we resolve the aforementioned issue.

[vindex10]

@BSGalvan thank you! I fixed this and added python3.11 to the CI tests. Also checked manually, sigcorr-run works now on 3.11

https://gitlab.com/sigcorr/sigcorr/-/pipelines/915127423

[editorialbot]

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

[vindex10]

@osorensen @sajanbhagat

depends on the progress of the review, of course, but for the sake of speeding up the process, I have a question.

Since we have already 3 out of 4 reviewers at the final stage of the process, could we potentially be satisfied with a simplified procedure for @sajanbhagat ? For example in the form of "yes/no" with comments if "no"?

[vindex10]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[osorensen]

@osorensen @sajanbhagat

depends on the progress of the review, of course, but for the sake of speeding up the process, I have a question.

Since we have already 3 out of 4 reviewers at the final stage of the process, could we potentially be satisfied with a simplified procedure for @sajanbhagat ? For example in the form of "yes/no" with comments if "no"?

Given that @sajanbhagat has not started the review yet, and that this whole process has taken an unfortunately long time, I'll remove @sajanbhagat from the list of reviewers. We have three reviewers already, and that's enough. I hope this is fine with you @sajanbhagat; I'll reach out to you again for later reviews.

[osorensen]

@gvieralopez, could you please see if the response to this issue addresses your concerns, and update your checklist accordingly?

[osorensen]

@BSGalvan, you have one unchecked item in your review checklist. Could you please check if the updates made by @vindex10 address your concerns? If so, please check the item in your list, if not, please elaborate what needs to be done. Thank you!

Hello! In the process of ticking that item off, I hit a slight hitch (related to changes introduced in Python 3.11), which I have recorded as an issue here. That being said, I was able to verify the other functionality satisfactorily by using Python 3.10, and will be finishing off my checklist once we resolve the aforementioned issue.

@BSGalvan, I'm looking forward to hear back from you whether @vindex10 now has resolved your issue.

[BSGalvan]

@BSGalvan, you have one unchecked item in your review checklist. Could you please check if the updates made by @vindex10 address your concerns? If so, please check the item in your list, if not, please elaborate what needs to be done. Thank you!

Hello! In the process of ticking that item off, I hit a slight hitch (related to changes introduced in Python 3.11), which I have recorded as an issue here. That being said, I was able to verify the other functionality satisfactorily by using Python 3.10, and will be finishing off my checklist once we resolve the aforementioned issue.

@BSGalvan, I'm looking forward to hear back from you whether @vindex10 now has resolved your issue.

The issue has been resolved successfully, thanks to the quick work by the devs 😄 That also finishes off my checklist, and the current version of the software+paper are quite ready for publication!

[gvieralopez]

I also checked all items on my checklist. I believe the work is ready for publication. Congratulations!

[osorensen]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[osorensen]

@vindex10, I will now make a final read through the paper, and let you know if I have any suggested changes. In the meantime, could you:

• [ ] Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here.
• [ ] Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g., figshare, an institutional repository)
• [ ] Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) has the correct metadata. This includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it). You may also add the authors' ORCID.
• [ ] Please list the DOI of the archived version here.

[editorialbot]

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

[osorensen]

@vindex10, just to keep track, I've opened the following editorial issues. I may add a few more after a second reading.

• [x] https://gitlab.com/sigcorr/sigcorr/-/issues/8
• [x] https://gitlab.com/sigcorr/sigcorr/-/issues/9
• [x] https://gitlab.com/sigcorr/sigcorr/-/merge_requests/10

[vindex10]

@osorensen published on Zenodo

10.5281/zenodo.8096892

[vindex10]

version 4.0.0 is already mentioned in the header of this issue

[osorensen]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[osorensen]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.1169739 is OK
- 10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1470-8 is OK
- 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2011.08.005 is OK
- 10.1088/1748-0221/18/05/P05041 is OK
- 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1142/9781860948985_0039 may be a valid DOI for title: The RooFit toolkit for data modeling

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[vindex10]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[vindex10]

@editorialbot check references

[vindex10]

updated the DOI for roofit

[osorensen]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[osorensen]

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.8096892 as archive

[editorialbot]

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.8096892

[osorensen]

Here are a few more suggestions @vindex10:

• [x] https://gitlab.com/sigcorr/sigcorr/-/merge_requests/11
• [x] https://gitlab.com/sigcorr/sigcorr/-/issues/10

[vindex10]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[osorensen]

@editorialbot set 4.0.0 as version

[editorialbot]

Done! version is now 4.0.0

[osorensen]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1142/9781860948985_0039 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1169739 is OK
- 10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1470-8 is OK
- 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2011.08.005 is OK
- 10.1088/1748-0221/18/05/P05041 is OK
- 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[osorensen]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1142/9781860948985_0039 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1169739 is OK
- 10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1470-8 is OK
- 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2011.08.005 is OK
- 10.1088/1748-0221/18/05/P05041 is OK
- 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

:wave: @openjournals/dsais-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof :point_right::page_facing_up: Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/4363, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[vindex10]

If I need to approve the proofs, they look good to me. Thank you!

[vindex10]

@osorensen , is there anything else we need to do?

[osorensen]

@osorensen , is there anything else we need to do?

No, we're just waiting for the editor in chief @openjournals/dsais-eics to do the final approval.