[PRE REVIEW]: QuantEcon.py: A community based Python library for quantitative economics

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@jstac<!--end-author-handle-- (John Stachurski) Repository: https://github.com/QuantEcon/QuantEcon.py Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss_paper Version: v0.7.0 Editor: !--editor-->@sbenthall<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @janosg, @mnwhite Managing EiC: Olivia Guest

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/55e166343438f3a075ed40504b7bb394"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/55e166343438f3a075ed40504b7bb394/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/55e166343438f3a075ed40504b7bb394/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/55e166343438f3a075ed40504b7bb394)

Author instructions

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

The AEiC suggestion for the handling editor is @sbenthall.

@jstac if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

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=0.01 s (507.7 files/s, 112718.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Markdown                         2            107              0            443
TeX                              1             33              0            280
YAML                             1              2              4             19
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                             4            142              4            742
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 2217

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1287/opre.33.5.1107 may be a valid DOI for title: Regenerative analysis and steady state distributions for Markov chains
- 10.1006/game.1999.0775 may be a valid DOI for title: On the number of pure strategy Nash equilibria in random games
- 10.11650/twjm/1500405875 may be a valid DOI for title: STRUCTURED DOUBLING ALGORITHM FOR DISCRETE-TIME ALGEBRAIC RICCATI EQUATIONS WITH SINGULAR CONTROL WEIGHTING MATRICES
- 10.1017/cbo9780511800481.005 may be a valid DOI for title: Equilibrium computation for two-player games in strategic and extensive form
- 10.1002/anac.200410015 may be a valid DOI for title: Efficient implementation of the Nelder–Mead search algorithm
- 10.4249/scholarpedia.2928 may be a valid DOI for title: Nelder-mead algorithm
- 10.1007/s10589-010-9329-3 may be a valid DOI for title: Implementing the Nelder-Mead simplex algorithm with adaptive parameters
- 10.1017/cbo9780511800481.005 may be a valid DOI for title: Equilibrium computation for two-player games in strategic and extensive form
- 10.3982/te1302 may be a valid DOI for title: An algorithm for two-player repeated games with perfect monitoring
- 10.1007/978-3-642-45046-4_2 may be a valid DOI for title: Polylogarithmic supports are required for approximate well-supported Nash equilibria below 2/3
- 10.1016/j.tcs.2013.01.013 may be a valid DOI for title: Ranking games that have competitiveness-based strategies
- 10.1007/s00182-011-0288-4 may be a valid DOI for title: Pure strategy Nash equilibria in non-zero sum colonel Blotto games
- 10.1111/ijet.12077 may be a valid DOI for title: Unit vector games
- 10.1016/0165-1765(86)90168-0 may be a valid DOI for title: Finite state markov-chain approximations to univariate and vector autoregressions
- 10.2307/j.ctv14163jx.16 may be a valid DOI for title: Asset Pricing Implications of Equilibrium Business Cycle Models

INVALID DOIs

- None

[oliviaguest]

@jsta can you fix the missing DOIs, please?

[editorialbot]

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

[sbenthall]

I would be glad to serve as editor on this submission.

[jstac]

We are very glad to have such a well qualified editor and look forward to all criticism and comments.

[Smit-create]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.11650/twjm/1500405875 is OK
- 10.1002/anac.200410015 is OK
- 10.1007/s10589-010-9329-3 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1016/0165-1765(86)90168-0 is OK
- 10.2307/j.ctv14163jx.16 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[sbenthall]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @sbenthall is now the editor

[sbenthall]

Hello @jstac ,

Before beginning to search for reviewers, I have a few points I wanted to bring up.

Can you please confirm that the scope of the submission is QuantEcon.py as developed here: https://github.com/quantecon/QuantEcon.py

At the end of the review process, you will be asked to cut a release of the repository and publish it to an archive, such as Zenodo, so that it gets a DOI.

Most often, authors include their paper in the same repository as the software that is under review. (Perhaps in its own branch.) I wonder if you would consider consolidating your paper and the software code in some way.

The other thing I should ask is if you have any potential reviewers in mind for your submission. I draw your attention in particular to the Conflict of Interest policy. Speaking truthfully, I understand the prominence of QuantEcon in your field. Your centrality may make finding unconflicted reviewers challenging. Guidance from you might ease the search process.

[oliviaguest]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.01 s (507.7 files/s, 112718.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Markdown                         2            107              0            443
TeX                              1             33              0            280
YAML                             1              2              4             19
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                             4            142              4            742
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

just in case it's not obvious, this failed because repo for code and paper must be the same

[Smit-create]

Many thanks, @sbenthall and @oliviaguest.

Can you please confirm that the scope of the submission is QuantEcon.py as developed here: https://github.com/quantecon/QuantEcon.py

Yes, the submission is for QuantEcon.py.

Most often, authors include their paper in the same repository as the software that is under review. (Perhaps in its own branch.) I wonder if you would consider consolidating your paper and the software code in some way.

I have created a branch in the QuantEcon.py repository: https://github.com/QuantEcon/QuantEcon.py/tree/joss_paper, and the paper can be found inside the folder joss_paper. I have also tested the paper build and that works fine.

Thanks again for the reviews.

[Smit-create]

@editorialbot set joss_paper as branch

[editorialbot]

Done! branch is now joss_paper

[Smit-create]

@editorialbot set https://github.com/QuantEcon/QuantEcon.py as repository

[editorialbot]

I'm sorry @Smit-create, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do.

[jstac]

@sbenthall Many thanks for your comments and my apologies for the delay in replying!

I confirm that the scope of the submission is QuantEcon.py as developed here: https://github.com/quantecon/QuantEcon.py and the repository has now been changed to reflect this.

Regarding potential referees, here is a very random selection of economists I don't know. I've never met or conversed with any of these people and I'm not aware of connections between them and QuantEcon. But they are all involved in quantitative economics and have GH accounts.

• Mridul Seth (https://github.com/MridulS)
• Alan Lujan (https://quantmacro.org/)
• Regi Kusumaatmadja (https://github.com/abdurrahmanregi)
• Gerome Wolf (https://github.com/gerwolf)
• Rafael Araujo (https://github.com/RafaelCRAraujo)

Someone in the open source econ community I have talked to but don't have strong connections with is Janoś Gabler (https://github.com/janosg).

[sbenthall]

@editorialbot set https://github.com/QuantEcon/QuantEcon.py as repository

[editorialbot]

Done! repository is now https://github.com/QuantEcon/QuantEcon.py

[sbenthall]

Thank you @jstac and @Smit-create . I will begin searching for reviewers!

[sbenthall]

@editorialbot add @janosg as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@janosg added to the reviewers list!

[sbenthall]

@editorialbot add @mnwhite as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@mnwhite added to the reviewers list!

[sbenthall]

Thank you @janosg and @mnwhite for agreeing to review this submission! We will soon begin the next phase of the process: review!

[sbenthall]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5585.