[PRE REVIEW]: shapfs: A Python package for feature selection by shapley value

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@jianyanghu<!--end-author-handle-- (Jianyang Hu) Repository: https://github.com/JianyangHu/shapfs Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main Version: 0.0.1 Editor: Pending Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8379dd06826c080f9c7d5d6955d709ef"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8379dd06826c080f9c7d5d6955d709ef/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8379dd06826c080f9c7d5d6955d709ef/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8379dd06826c080f9c7d5d6955d709ef)

Author instructions

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

@jianyanghu 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 (290.0 files/s, 45390.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML                             1             84              5            440
Python                           3             59             25            101
TeX                              1              6              0            101
Markdown                         2             32              0             70
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            314             15
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                             8            181            344            727
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 538

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[editorialbot]

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

[JianyangHu]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @JianyangHu, 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

[JianyangHu]

Generates the pdf paper

[JianyangHu]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[JianyangHu]

@editorialbot check repository

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.02 s (451.5 files/s, 70602.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML                             1             84              5            440
Python                           3             59             25            101
TeX                              1              6              0            101
Markdown                         2             35              0             66
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            314             15
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                             8            184            344            723
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 532

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[arfon]

@JianyangHu – can you confirm that this repository (https://github.com/JianyangHu/shapfs) contains all of the source code associated with your submission? It looks to be very small (and well below our lower limit) but I wanted to check with you first.

[editorialbot]

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

[JianyangHu]

@arfon - Yes, because the shapfs package is based on the shap package and some existing packages, it does not need a lot of code to calculate the SHAP value, so it looks very small, but the focus of the package reflects a logic of variable selection based on the SHAP value, from this aspect, although the package is small, it is also very convenient to use.

[JianyangHu]

@editorialbot generate preprint

[editorialbot]

:page_facing_up: Preprint file created: Find it here in the Artifacts list :page_facing_up:

[JianyangHu]

@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:

[JianyangHu]

@editorialbot list editors

[editorialbot]

List of JOSS editors

@AJQuinn
@AoifeHughes
@Bisaloo
@Fei-Tao
@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
@KristinaRiemer
@Nikoleta-v3
@adi3
@adonath
@ajstewartlang
@arfon
@atrisovic
@bmcfee
@britta-wstnr
@cMadan
@chartgerink
@christinahedges
@crsl4
@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
@kellyrowland
@kthyng
@kyleniemeyer
@lpantano
@lucydot
@luizirber
@majensen
@marcosvital
@martinfleis
@matthewfeickert
@mbobra
@melissawm
@mikldk
@mstimberg
@observingClouds
@olexandr-konovalov
@oliviaguest
@osorensen
@pdebuyl
@pibion
@plaplant
@ppxasjsm
@prashjha
@richardjgowers
@rkurchin
@samhforbes
@sbenthall
@spholmes
@timtroendle
@vissarion
@warrickball
@xuanxu
@zhubonan

[JianyangHu]

@editorialbot list reviewers

[editorialbot]

Here's the current list of reviewers: https://bit.ly/joss-reviewers

[arfon]

@arfon - Yes, because the shapfs package is based on the shap package and some existing packages, it does not need a lot of code to calculate the SHAP value, so it looks very small, but the focus of the package reflects a logic of variable selection based on the SHAP value, from this aspect, although the package is small, it is also very convenient to use.

I'm afraid this means that this submission is not in scope for JOSS as it doesn't meet our substantial scholarly effort criterion.

One possible alternative to JOSS is to follow GitHub's guide on how to create a permanent archive and DOI for your software. This DOI can then be used by others to cite your work.

[arfon]

@editorialbot reject

[editorialbot]

Paper rejected.

[JianyangHu]

@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:

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

MOAFS: A Massive Online Analysis library for feature selection in data streams Submitting author: @mbdemoraes Handling editor: @VivianePons (Retired) Reviewers: @sptennak, @DARSakthi Similarity score: 0.6913

RENT: A Python Package for Repeated Elastic Net Feature Selection Submitting author: @annajenul Handling editor: @mikldk (Retired) Reviewers: @maximtrp, @arunmano121 Similarity score: 0.6840

pysr3: A Python Package for Sparse Relaxed Regularized Regression Submitting author: @aksholokhov Handling editor: @plaplant (Active) Reviewers: @blakeaw, @mhu48 Similarity score: 0.6788

Autorank: A Python package for automated ranking of classifiers Submitting author: @sherbold Handling editor: @arfon (Active) Reviewers: @JonathanReardon, @ejhigson Similarity score: 0.6627

Simulation Decomposition in Python Submitting author: @tupui Handling editor: @crvernon (Active) Reviewers: @JoshuaOsborneDATA, @matt-graham Similarity score: 0.6493

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.