[REVIEW]: Bruno: A Julia package for simulation, financial asset pricing and delta hedging

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@mitchellpound@jbytecode<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @lrnv, @omendezmorales Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7654894

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ab42a8943c55d0d93c6695dfadbe869c"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ab42a8943c55d0d93c6695dfadbe869c/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ab42a8943c55d0d93c6695dfadbe869c/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ab42a8943c55d0d93c6695dfadbe869c)

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

@lrnv & @omendezmorales, 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 @jbytecode 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 @lrnv

📝 Checklist for @omendezmorales

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Hello humans, 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 1 year ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.04 s (1131.7 files/s, 119372.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                           22            567            326           3366
Markdown                        18            190              0            540
YAML                             5              4              3            152
TeX                              1              8              0             85
TOML                             4              3              0             30
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            50            772            329           4173
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 525

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1086/260062 is OK
- 10.1057/9780230392687.0018 is OK
- 10.1081/etc-120028836 is OK
- 10.1080/07474930802459016 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

Dear reviewers @lrnv, @omendezmorales

This is the review thread. The corresponding author is @mitchellpound. I am the handling editor for this submission.

Please firstly type

@editorialbot generate my checklist

to generate your own checklist. In that checklist, there are nearly 20 check items. Whenever you complete the corresponding task, you can check off them.

Please write your comments as separate posts and do not modify your checklist descriptions.

The review process is interactive so you can always interact with the authors, reviewers, and the editor. You can also create issues and pull requests in the target repo. Please do mention this thread's URL in the issues so we can keep tracking what is going on out of our world.

Please do not hesitate to ask me about anything, anytime.

Thank you in advance!

lrnv commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @lrnv

Conflict of interest

[x] 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

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

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/USU-Analytics-Solution-Center/Bruno.jl?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@mitchellpound) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

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

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

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

omendezmorales commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @omendezmorales

Conflict of interest

[x] 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

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

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/USU-Analytics-Solution-Center/Bruno.jl?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@mitchellpound) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

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

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

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

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

Hi dear reviewers @lrnv and @omendezmorales

After 2 weeks since the review starts I just wanted to see how is your review going. As you know, the review process in JOSS in interactive and you always interact with the authors, reviewers, and the editor; you can open issues and send pull requests in the target repo.

Please do not hesitate to ask me anything if you get into trouble.

Thank you in advance!

lrnv commented 1 year ago

@jbytecode hi sorry I had a lot of things to do these days. Can this wait a little more until the begining of February ?

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@lrnv - Thank you for the response, of course we can wait a little bit. Have a nice weekend!

omendezmorales commented 1 year ago

Hi Mehmet,

I started checking off some of the items in the rubric, and soon will contact the author concerning some items I feel he has not addressed (yet).

I will let you know in case of questions/doubts from my side.

Best,

-- /Orlando Méndez/

/ /

On 22-01-23 08:39, Mehmet Hakan Satman wrote:

Hi dear reviewers @lrnv https://github.com/lrnv and @omendezmorales https://github.com/omendezmorales

After 2 weeks since the review starts I just wanted to see how is your review going. As you know, the review process in JOSS in interactive and you always interact with the authors, reviewers, and the editor; you can open issues and send pull requests in the target repo.

Please do not hesitate to ask me anything if you get into trouble.

Thank you in advance!

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5056#issuecomment-1399461316, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABSR3R6EKN5KDUZZ4MX6NQ3WTUL7TANCNFSM6AAAAAATUU7DQU. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@omendezmorales - thank you for the response. Have a nice weekend.

omendezmorales commented 1 year ago

Hi @mitchellpound ,

I'm contacting you in the context of your submission to JOSS for the paper on Bruno.jl. Looking at the review checklist , there are a few things I feel your paper needs to address/clarify:

In line 5, you mention "These authors contributed equally", meaning Spencer Clemens and you. Is this note important in the paper? and if so, for whom?
State of the field. I think you succeed in describing why Bruno is needed, and what are its key features; however, I think it would be useful to cite some (software) packages Bruno competes with or is superior to (you hint some of this in lines 34-36, but concrete names might help).
In lines 36 - 38 you mention complete analysis twice; what does complete analysis mean? is it the notion of simulation, (asset) pricing, and (delta) hedging, or something else?
Lastly, I saw the documentation is very thorough and easy to folllow, and I believe it would not hurt if you added a (simple) use example in your paper as well (I've seen other JOSS articles doing that, piquing thereby the reader's interest).

I still have some more items to cover in my reviewing role, and I will let you know should I have more questions/comments.

Thanks for your reply!

mitchellpound commented 1 year ago

@omendezmorales thank you for the suggestions!

I made some changes to the paper to clarify the points you brought up:

I took out the "contributed equally" tag for the authors. We copied that from the JOSS documentation example paper, but after looking at other JOSS papers that were accepted it didn't seem necessary.
I changed "complete analysis" to be more specific that we meant analysis that used different pricing models and data simulation methods together. Additionally, I referred some financial packages in Julia that have similar functionality of individual parts of Bruno.
Lastly, I added an example of running a simple trading strategy.

Thanks again for the suggestions, I think each of these changes made the paper much better and showcase the benefits of Bruno.jl much better. If you have any other suggestions please let me know!

mitchellpound commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@lrnv, @omendezmorales - could you please update your status and inform us on how is your review going? thank you in advance.

omendezmorales commented 1 year ago

Hi Mehmet,

The author replied last Saturday to the suggestions/questions I asked, and did some changes to the paper, which I will be reviewing this week. I estimate by the 1st week of February, I could be ready (and I will let you know otherwise).

Thanks,

-- /Orlando Méndez/

/ /

On 30-01-23 06:52, Mehmet Hakan Satman wrote:

@lrnv https://github.com/lrnv, @omendezmorales https://github.com/omendezmorales - could you please update your status and inform us on how is your review going? thank you in advance.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5056#issuecomment-1408301839, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABSR3RYT7NGMRKSBXFNEPTTWU6FOLANCNFSM6AAAAAATUU7DQU. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

Dear @lrnv

It seems you haven't started your review yet. Are you fine?

Please ping me if you are not available (and will not be available in a near future) so I can find another reviewer, otherwise, we are getting out of normal limits of review times.

Thank you in advance.

lrnv commented 1 year ago

Entirely my fault, I apologize.

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@lrnv - no worries. thank you for the response.

@omendezmorales - we need your latest thoughts on the final changes that are performed by our author.

I apologise for pinging you too much and being verbose!

omendezmorales commented 1 year ago

Hi @jbytecode ,

The author addressed the points in my last message, and will contact him briefly for a few typos introduced (hurting the Quality of writing), after which I think the article will look good to me.

Thanks,

omendezmorales commented 1 year ago

Hi @mitchellpound , Thanks for addressing my comments in my last message. From my side, there are only a few typos which need to be fixed, after which I think your paper would be good to go:

In line 40, I read almost at the end "derviatives" instead of derivatives.
In line 47, I think you meant "are provided" instead of "are provide"
In line 53, I read "simuation", where I guess you meant "simulation"
Finally, in line 56 I read "envirnoment" .

Once you update the text, I will conclude my review. Thanks,

lrnv commented 1 year ago

Dear @jbytecode, @mitchellpound,

I have treated the list of items and ended up opening a few issues on the repo :

Apart from these little issues, which are all pretty minor, I found the package convenient to use. There a still a few boxes that are unchecked, but they should be after the authors resolve those issues.

I wanted to thank the authors for the nice piece of software they wrote !

Edit : taking a look at the package internals, there is a huge performance issue :

https://github.com/USU-Analytics-Solution-Center/Bruno.jl/issues/67

I know that there are no claims of performance made anywhere, but this is just silly and should in my opinion really be fixed. I would classify it as a low-hanging fruit :)

I also have smaller “code style” issues, that do not hurt performance but might hurt maintainability and reusability of your code. Note that no claims were made about that, so it is again OK not to fix, but in my opinion it is worth fixing:

The last one might be the most demanding one to fix for the less obvious direct benefits (but great long-term benefits IMHO), so I would totally accept a wontfix response on this one.

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@mitchellpound - Please consider applying the suggestions that our reviewers addressed and ping us when you've done with them. Thank you in advance.

lrnv commented 1 year ago

@jbytecode : Authors addressed all the problem I raised quite successfully. We even upgraded the perf. of Bruno.jl by removing together some abstract typing.

It was a pleasure working with them, but alas my review is now over. Is there something else you need me to do ?

Thank you for chairing this !

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@lrnv - thank you for the review. It seems you have still unchecked review items, could you please check off them if the corresponding issues are solved?

lrnv commented 1 year ago

@jbytecode Done.

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@lrnv - thank you!

mitchellpound commented 1 year ago

@jbytecode, I looked through the code one more time (for good measure) and made sure that all the typos/ issues brought up by @omendezmorales have also been taken care of.

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@mitchellpound - thank you for informing us.

@omendezmorales - could you please update us on how is your review going? sorry for bothering and being so verbose here. thank you in advance.

omendezmorales commented 1 year ago

HI @jbytecode, Once the @editorialbot regenerates the PDF, I will have a look once more, and if it looks good, then I will conclude the review.

omendezmorales commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

omendezmorales commented 1 year ago

Hi @jbytecode,

With the last modifications done by @mitchellpound, I conclude my review of the article, nice job! Kudos also for the performance improvement suggested by @lrnv .

Greetings.

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@omendezmorales - thank you for finalizing your review.

It seems some of the task items are still unchecked. Did you forget to click them?

Thank you in advance

omendezmorales commented 1 year ago

It seems some of the task items are still unchecked. Did you forget to click them?

I just checked them all, thanks for checking 😆 (pun intended)

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1086/260062 is OK
- 10.1057/9780230392687.0018 is OK
- 10.1081/etc-120028836 is OK
- 10.1080/07474930802459016 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

Dear @mitchellpound

I've just sent a pull request (https://github.com/USU-Analytics-Solution-Center/Bruno.jl/pull/75) for minor corrections and changes in both the manuscript and the bibtex file.

Please review the PR, and apply if you agree with them.

Thank you in advance.

mitchellpound commented 1 year ago

@jbytecode, thank you for catching those errors. I just merged that PR in.

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1086/260062 is OK
- 10.1057/9780230392687.0018 is OK
- 10.1080/01621459.1994.10476870 is OK
- 10.1081/etc-120028836 is OK
- 10.1080/07474930802459016 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@mitchellpound - The paper seems better than ever. We have a few minor steps to go

The manuscript does not include ORCID values set for each single author. Please provide this information in your markdown file like

authors:
  - name: Mitchell Pound
    orcid: xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx
    affiliation: 1

for all of the coauthors.

Addition to that, please follow these steps carefully:

[x] Add ORCID information
[x] Compile the pdf here
[x] Please read the revisited paper pdf carefully, one more time, and correct any issue if it exists. Please perform a full grammar check.
[x] Create a tagged release in the software repository. Report the version here. The version should be in the form of vx.y.z, e.g. v1.2.3.
[x] Create a Zenodo archive of the repository in https://zenodo.org/
[x] The Zenodo archive (with the same name/title with the JOSS paper) should have the correct metadata, e.g. author names, ORCIDs, the title of the archive. Please set the archive title as the paper title.
[x] Please provide the tagged release id, zenodo archive DOI, and Zenodo archive URL here.

Thank you in advance.

mitchellpound commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

openjournals / joss-reviews