[PRE REVIEW]: WSKNN - Weighted Session-based K-NN recommender system

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@SimonMolinsky<!--end-author-handle-- (Szymon Moliński) Repository: https://github.com/nokaut/wsknn Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper Version: 1.1 Editor: !--editor-->@AoifeHughes<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @inpefess, @svchb Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/afc237f4ed493a260006780394ddc3ba"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/afc237f4ed493a260006780394ddc3ba/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/afc237f4ed493a260006780394ddc3ba/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/afc237f4ed493a260006780394ddc3ba)

Author instructions

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

@SimonMolinsky 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 (946.3 files/s, 132314.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          41           1124           1826           2352
JSON                             4              0              0           1024
Markdown                         6            188              0            453
Jupyter Notebook                 3              0           1268            442
reStructuredText                 4            121             92            209
YAML                             5             10             38             87
TeX                              1              6              0             70
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
TOML                             1              0              0              3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            67           1461           3232           4675
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1343

[arfon]

Note this is a resubmission of https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5032

[editorialbot]

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-030-72113-8_43 is OK
- 10.1007/s11257-018-9209-6 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1016/j.ins.2021.05.048 may be a valid DOI for title: Session-aware Recommendation: A Surprising Quest for the State-of-the-art

INVALID DOIs

- None

[arfon]

@SimonMolinsky – please quote the affiliations on this line (i.e., "1, 2"). That should fix your paper compilation.

[SimonMolinsky]

@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:

[arfon]

@SimonMolinsky – apologies for the delayed response here. We're currently managing a large backlog of submissions and the editor most appropriate for your area is already rather busy.

For now, we will need to waitlist this paper and process it as the queue reduces. Thanks for your patience!

[arfon]

@editorialbot invite @AoifeHughes as editor

:wave: @AoifeHughes – would you be willing to edit this submission for JOSS?

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[AoifeHughes]

Yes of course! I’m just travelling this weekend, but should have time from Monday to edit 😊

[SimonMolinsky]

Thank you @arfon , Hi @AoifeHughes !

Great news for the beginning of May! 😊

[arfon]

@editorialbot assign @AoifeHughes as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @AoifeHughes is now the editor

[AoifeHughes]

Hi @SimonMolinsky, happy to be involved. First things first, let's find some reviewers. Do you have anyone (or two) in mind who would be appropriate to review? You can use: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/reviewers. Or you can suggest others and I can reach out to them. Otherwise, I can start contacting some potential reviewers.

[SimonMolinsky]

Hi @AoifeHughes

I will check the reviewers from the list and let you know who might be interested in the package. Unfortunately, I don't have anyone in mind right now.

Thank you!

[SimonMolinsky]

Hi @AoifeHughes ,

I've done some research, and here's the subjectively ordered list:

• https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/reviewers/1866 (recommender systems),
• https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/reviewers/2250 (behavioral and social sciences),
• https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/reviewers/2602 (Computational Social Science),
• https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/reviewers/1198 (General knowledge about ML / AI).

Anyone with general knowledge about ML models could check the package. It could help if the reviewer has experience related to the following:

• recommender systems,
• sequences of events,
• e-commerce & retail.

[AoifeHughes]

Hi, @inpefess, @cosimameyer, @galessiorob, apologies for the ping, I was unable to find your email addresses. Would you be interested in helping to review this paper for JOSS?

[inpefess]

Hi @AoifeHughes, no worries, I prefer GitHub notifications to emails for the JOSS. Yes, I'd be happy to review.

[AoifeHughes]

@editorialbot add @inpefess as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@inpefess added to the reviewers list!

[AoifeHughes]

Fab, thanks, just need one more and we can get the ball rolling! Apologies for the delay, I'd sent some emails last week and hadn't a response for reviewers.

[galessiorob]

Thanks for the invite @AoifeHughes, unfortunately, I don't have the bandwidth to review at the moment. Sorry.

[cosimameyer]

Thanks for your patience and for inviting me, @AoifeHughes. The library/paper sounds interesting and I’d love to help but don’t have the capacity at the moment. I wish you all a fruitful (and inspiring) review process ☺️

[AoifeHughes]

Sorry for the delays, @SimonMolinsky I've just reached out to some other potential reviewers this morning, but if you know of any please do suggest them and we can proceed with the review.

[SimonMolinsky]

Hi @AoifeHughes

Delays are understandable :)

I will reach for reviewers too! Thank you for being so supportive :)

[svchb]

@AoifeHughes I can do the review.

[AoifeHughes]

@editorialbot add @svchb as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@svchb added to the reviewers list!

[svchb]

@editorialbot generate my checklist

[editorialbot]

Checklists can only be created once the review has started in the review issue

[AoifeHughes]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5639.