[PRE REVIEW]: CORA: A Python Package for Combinational Regularity Analysis

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@ZuzanaSebb<!--end-author-handle-- (Zuzana Sebechlebská) Repository: https://github.com/PoliUniLu/cora Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: 0.1.1 Editor: !--editor-->@vissarion<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @Naeemkh, @Arrondissement5etDemi Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ce3956e82d1ee4f1d17a9d204e7566be"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ce3956e82d1ee4f1d17a9d204e7566be/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ce3956e82d1ee4f1d17a9d204e7566be/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ce3956e82d1ee4f1d17a9d204e7566be)

Author instructions

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

@ZuzanaSebb 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=0.07 s (278.9 files/s, 58622.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          13            760            315           2500
Markdown                         3             53              0            199
TeX                              1              3              0            122
YAML                             1              1              4             18
TOML                             1              3              0             16
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            19            820            319           2855
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1006

[editorialbot]

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.

[danielskatz]

👋 @ZuzanaSebb - note that your paper does not compile. Please follow the example paper and note that you can click on the error above to find out more about it. Please use the command @editorialbot generate pdf after making changes to the .md file to make a new PDF. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1177/0049124109339369 may be a valid DOI for title: Inferring Causal Complexity
- 10.1016/j.nbt.2017.05.001 may be a valid DOI for title: Biological standards for the Knowledge-Based BioEconomy: What is at stake
- 10.1037/hea0000783 may be a valid DOI for title: Multimorbidity in health psychology and behavioral medicine
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0233625 may be a valid DOI for title: Algorithmic bias in social research: A meta-analysis

INVALID DOIs

- None

[danielskatz]

In addition, you could work on the possibly missing DOIs that editorialbot suggests, but note that some may be incorrect. Please feel free to make changes to your .bib file, then use the command @editorialbot check references to check again, and the command @editorialbot generate pdf when the references are right to make a new PDF. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

[ZuzanaSebb]

@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:

[ZuzanaSebb]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1177/0049124109339369 is OK
- 10.1016/j.nbt.2017.05.001 is OK
- 10.1037/hea0000783 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1371/journal.pone.0233625 may be a valid DOI for title: Algorithmic bias in social research: A meta-analysis

INVALID DOIs

- None

[ZuzanaSebb]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

Checking the BibTeX entries failed with the following error:

Failed to parse BibTeX on value "@" (AT) [#<BibTeX::Bibliography data=[12]>, "@", #<BibTeX::Entry >, {:author=>["{Thiem}, A. and {Mkrtchyan}, L. and {Haesebrouck}, T. and {Sanchez}, D."], :journal=>["PLoS ONE"], :volume=>["15"], :number=>["6"], :title=>["{Algorithmic bias in social research: A meta-analysis}"], :year=>["2020"], :doi=>["10.1371/journal.pone.0233625"]}, ","]

[ZuzanaSebb]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.

[ZuzanaSebb]

@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:

[ZuzanaSebb]

@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:

[ZuzanaSebb]

@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:

[ZuzanaSebb]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1177/0049124109339369 is OK
- 10.1016/j.nbt.2017.05.001 is OK
- 10.1037/hea0000783 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0233625 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[AlrikThiem]

@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:

[AlrikThiem]

@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:

[AlrikThiem]

@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:

[AlrikThiem]

@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:

[AlrikThiem]

@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:

[AlrikThiem]

@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:

[danielskatz]

👋 @vissarion - Do you think you would be able to edit this submission?

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot invite @vissarion as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[vissarion]

@editorialbot assign @vissarion as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @vissarion is now the editor

[vissarion]

:wave: @skadio @cprudhom @Arrondissement5etDemi @N-Wouda @idoby 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

[N-Wouda]

@vissarion I'm very unfamiliar with these methods. I do not think I can meaningfully review this package, I'm afraid!

[vissarion]

@N-Wouda thanks for your quick answer!

[cprudhom]

@vissarion I'm afraid I'm in the same situation. In particular, I cannot judge the functionnality, the purpose of the software or be relevant in comparison with other packages commonly used in this field of research.

[idoby]

@vissarion Same here, this is very far from anything I can be useful for. Sorry!

[Arrondissement5etDemi]

@vissarion I can try it! When is the report due?

[skadio]

I won't be able to review this one, thanks for sharing!

[vissarion]

@cprudhom @idoby @skadio thanks for the quick reply!

@Arrondissement5etDemi typically there is a six weeks due. It this OK with you?

[vissarion]

Hi @EugeneHao, @adam2392, @tedinburgh, @Naeemkh, @wxwx1993 as experts in causal inference would you be willing to review this submission of a Python package 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

[Naeemkh]

@vissarion, I can review the submission based on the provided guidelines.