[PRE REVIEW]: EurovisionBias, a tool to investigate voting patterns in the Eurovision Song Contest

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@mantzaris<!--end-author-handle-- (Alexander V. Mantzaris) Repository: https://github.com/mantzaris/eurovisionBias Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.1 Editor: Pending Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3fc85c29d43f4567b0b07ea4df62f928"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3fc85c29d43f4567b0b07ea4df62f928/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3fc85c29d43f4567b0b07ea4df62f928/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3fc85c29d43f4567b0b07ea4df62f928)

Author instructions

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

@mantzaris 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=0.03 s (441.8 files/s, 109682.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                            7            454            401           1807
TeX                              1             16              0            118
Markdown                         2             53              0            106
YAML                             2              1              4             19
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            12            524            405           2050
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 682

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1007/s42001-018-0020-2 may be a valid DOI for title: Preference and neglect amongst countries in the Eurovision Song Contest
- 10.18564/jasss.3580 may be a valid DOI for title: Examining collusion and voting biases between countries during the eurovision song contest since 1957
- 10.1137/141000671 may be a valid DOI for title: Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing
- 10.1007/978-3-642-18638-7_6 may be a valid DOI for title: Graphviz and dynagraph—static and dynamic graph drawing tools
- 10.1016/0378-8733(95)00253-k may be a valid DOI for title: ‘Unite Unite Europe’The political and cultural structures of Europe as reflected in the Eurovision Song Contest
- 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2007.05.004 may be a valid DOI for title: The Eurovision song contest. Is voting political or cultural?

INVALID DOIs

- None

[mantzaris]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[mantzaris]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @mantzaris, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

[editorialbot]

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

[mantzaris]

@editorialbot list editors

[editorialbot]

List of JOSS editors

@AJQuinn
@AoifeHughes
@Bisaloo
@Fei-Tao
@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
@KristinaRiemer
@Nikoleta-v3
@VivianePons
@adi3
@adonath
@ajstewartlang
@arfon
@bmcfee
@britta-wstnr
@cMadan
@chartgerink
@christinahedges
@crvernon
@csoneson
@danasolav
@danielskatz
@dfm
@dhhagan
@diehlpk
@drvinceknight
@elbeejay
@eloisabentivegna
@emdupre
@fabian-s
@faroit
@fboehm
@fraukewiese
@galessiorob
@gkthiruvathukal
@graciellehigino
@hugoledoux
@ivastar
@jarvist
@jbytecode
@jedbrown
@jgostick
@jmschrei
@jsta
@katyhuff
@kellyrowland
@kthyng
@kyleniemeyer
@lpantano
@lucydot
@luizirber
@majensen
@marcosvital
@martinfleis
@mbobra
@melissawm
@mikldk
@mstimberg
@olexandr-konovalov
@oliviaguest
@osorensen
@pdebuyl
@pibion
@plaplant
@ppxasjsm
@prashjha
@richardjgowers
@rkurchin
@samhforbes
@sbenthall
@spholmes
@timtroendle
@vissarion
@warrickball
@xuanxu
@zhubonan

[mantzaris]

vchuravy , ChrisRackauckas , Datseris

[oliviaguest]

@editorialbot query scope

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[oliviaguest]

hey 👋 @mantzaris can you please clarify here (or wherever you prefer and link us) how much of this code "is an extension of the code and research found in https://github.com/mantzaris/eurovision and published in http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/21/1/1.html" and how much is new?

[mantzaris]

Hello @oliviaguest :wave: , https://github.com/mantzaris/eurovision only takes into consideration the positive 'bias'; the scores allocated which are considered larger than expected, but ignores the 'negative' bias. The negative bias is a type of 'neglect' in the score allocations which is almost completely ignored in most research on the topic and this repo calculates both aspects (producing 2 sets of graphs for each edge type). This repo also calculates the graphs for which we can find associations of rank with bias to see if those participants which are more biased do better in the competition which is essential to show that preference is mixed in with strategy to win. A key difference is also that the results are gathered together in a folder set making it easier for users to find the results, a recent version of Julia is used, and the functionality has been rearranged around a single entry point. Overall, the previous repo performs the basic sampling analysis which only provides a partial view of the bias investigation and this repo has the full set of features.

[oliviaguest]

@mantzaris Thank you. Can you maybe explain this somewhere in the repo/paper itself (as appropriate) and perhaps reread/double-check the submission requirements, e.g., https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html#tests. 😊

[mantzaris]

@oliviaguest , an explanation of the additions is made in the repo. In regards to the testing requirements, in this subsection of the Readme, ( https://github.com/mantzaris/eurovisionBias/blob/master/README.md#running-the-code ) it describes how to run a test: "Documented manual steps that can be followed to objectively check the expected functionality of the software (e.g., a sample input file to assert behavior)" Should these steps be rewritten to be more explicit and stand out as an instruction set?

[mantzaris]

@oliviaguest do you think that the requirement is satisfied or that it must be addressed differently? Any comments or suggestions are welcome

[oliviaguest]

@mantzaris I am really sorry to say that as a function of the scope review, we have decided that in its current state the project doesn't meet our criteria. Based on what the editorial board has discussed, I think there are two main stumbling blocks:

• One is that the codebase is an incremental improvement on a previous publication, which of course is wonderful, but doesn't meet JOSS criteria.

• The other is that the packaging is currently imperfect, or at least subject to significant/extensive improvement beyond the current shape it is in.

Please see: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#substantial-scholarly-effort

We really do appreciate that you chose JOSS and understand this is not the reply from us you would have wanted. If you want to archive your code and make it (or the short paper, or both) citable, you can mint your own DOI. Take a look here for an example: https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/archiving-a-github-repository/referencing-and-citing-content

Thanks and I am sorry this is not what you wanted to hear.

[oliviaguest]

@editorialbot reject

[editorialbot]

Paper rejected.