editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@SimonMolinsky@AoifeHughes<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @inpefess, @svchb Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8414247

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)

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

@inpefess & @svchb, 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 @AoifeHughes 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 @svchb

📝 Checklist for @inpefess

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=0.08 s (871.1 files/s, 121803.2 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 commented 1 year ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 1343

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

svchb commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @svchb

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/nokaut/wsknn?
[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 (@SimonMolinsky) 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?

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:

inpefess commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @inpefess

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/nokaut/wsknn?
[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 (@SimonMolinsky) 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?

inpefess commented 1 year ago

https://github.com/nokaut/wsknn/issues/29 (blocker for "Example usage")

inpefess commented 1 year ago

https://github.com/nokaut/wsknn/issues/30 (Functionality documentation)

inpefess commented 1 year ago

https://github.com/nokaut/wsknn/issues/31 (Performance)

inpefess commented 1 year ago

Please find my suggestions to improve the paper here: https://github.com/nokaut/wsknn/issues/32 Thank you for creating and sharing the WSKNN! Unfortunately, we still don't have enough well-documented and maintained recommender system packages in free access, so your efforts are most laudable! I'm looking forward to your corrections and further discussion.

inpefess commented 1 year ago

https://github.com/nokaut/wsknn/issues/35 (Community guidelines)

inpefess commented 1 year ago

https://github.com/nokaut/wsknn/issues/37 (Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?)

Without an example on tabular data, it seems to be relatively hard to use the package for e-commerce applications since a server log (or a transactions table) of the format

timestamp,session_id,item_id,action_type

is still a wide-spread data representation scheme in this field (to my best knowledge).

SimonMolinsky commented 1 year ago

@inpefess thank you for your thorough review and comments! Those are invaluable for the package, and the requested changes will make it better for the community. I will start working on it, and let you know when every step is done.

SimonMolinsky commented 1 year ago

Hi, I'm updating the paper with benchmarking table, but corrections are still ongoing. When I perform all changes and the paper is ready for the 2nd iteration of checks, I'll let you know.

@editorialbot generate pdf

AoifeHughes 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:

inpefess commented 1 year ago

@AoifeHughes, reviewer instructions command "to complete your review in the next six weeks", so the deadline is today. I've finished the first iteration, and the author did well revising the code and the paper. I will need to read a new version one more time after the author fixes two last issues (https://github.com/nokaut/wsknn/issues/35 and https://github.com/nokaut/wsknn/issues/37). @SimonMolinsky many thanks for improving the package!

SimonMolinsky 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:

inpefess commented 1 year ago

@SimonMolinsky the package and the paper were improved substantially, thank you for your work! @AoifeHughes I'm done with the review, I highly recommend publication.

SimonMolinsky commented 1 year ago

@inpefess Thank you for your review & comments! Your guidance made the package better :)

@AoifeHughes Are we waiting for the second reviewer now?

AoifeHughes commented 1 year ago

Hi @svchb, can I check in and ask how your review is coming along and if you would be able to give an estimate of when you think it might be completed?

AoifeHughes commented 1 year ago

@svchb sorry for the follow up ping! Please see above 👆

svchb commented 1 year ago

Sry, somehow the notifications for this disappeared. I will update this later today.

svchb commented 1 year ago

@SimonMolinsky

Paper

line 36: it can grow ~up~ line 39: The company owns the price comparison service Nokaut.pl line 58: ) libraries. line 81: Then, a dictionary with settings may be passed to the predict() function. line 90: Extend the sentence: "The preprocessing module prepares data." with a bit more details or remove it. line 99: The basic data type required by the algorithm is an event: (make event bold) line 105, 107: session (make bold) line 119: This section describes the performance of WSKNN. line 119: from ~the~ internal line 119: ~in~ -> at line 120: ~company~ line 122: A comparison

svchb commented 1 year ago

Otherwise I am fine.

@inpefess Thanks for doing all the work

SimonMolinsky 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:

SimonMolinsky commented 1 year ago

@svchb Thank you for your suggestions. I improved the paper's language quality. The new version is generated in this review.

svchb commented 1 year ago

@SimonMolinsky :+1: @AoifeHughes I am also satisfied with the current state.

AoifeHughes commented 1 year ago

Fab, thanks for the updates @SimonMolinsky can you check the current release and metadata info for the paper is correct (version numbers etc.) I'll also just generate a follow up list

AoifeHughes commented 1 year ago

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

[x] Double check authors and affiliations (including ORCIDs)
[ ] Make a release of the software with the latest changes from the review and post the version number here. This is the version that will be used in the JOSS paper.
[ ] Archive the release on Zenodo/figshare/etc and post the DOI here.
[ ] Make sure that the title and author list (including ORCIDs) in the archive match those in the JOSS paper.
[ ] Make sure that the license listed for the archive is the same as the software license.

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance

[x] Read the text of the paper and offer comments/corrections (as either a list or a PR)
[x] Check the references in the paper for corrections (e.g. capitalization)
[x] Check that the archive title, author list, version tag, and the license are correct
[x] Set archive DOI with @editorialbot set <DOI here> as archive
[x] Set version with @editorialbot set <version here> as version
[x] Double check rendering of paper with @editorialbot generate pdf
[x] Specifically check the references with @editorialbot check references and ask author(s) to update as needed
[ ] Recommend acceptance with @editorialbot recommend-accept

SimonMolinsky 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:

SimonMolinsky commented 1 year ago

@AoifeHughes Thank you very much! I've followed your suggestions from the issue here. The paper is now re-rendered and ready for the final checks :)

Regarding metadata

The release has changed. Now it is 1.2.0 - I uploaded it into PyPI, Zenodo, and set it in the GitHub repository.

AoifeHughes commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.8398291 as archive

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.8398291

AoifeHughes commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot set 1.2.0 as version

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Done! version is now 1.2.0

AoifeHughes 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:

AoifeHughes 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

- 10.1007/978-3-030-72113-8_43 is OK
- 10.1007/s11257-018-9209-6 is OK
- 10.1145/2792838.2798723 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.8233425 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

AoifeHughes commented 1 year ago

I've checked that the DOI is valid for https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2021.05.048

AoifeHughes commented 1 year ago

I've just seen that https://zenodo.org/record/8398291 doesn't appear to have the the entire repo?

SimonMolinsky commented 1 year ago

I've just seen that https://zenodo.org/record/8398291 doesn't appear to have the entire repo?

@AoifeHughes I put there only package as it is on PyPI (tar.gz and whl files). Should I upload a zipped repository (the main branch + all the files)? Should I upload it as the "Other" type of upload?

AoifeHughes commented 1 year ago

You can connect a git repo to Zenodo https://coderefinery.github.io/github-without-command-line/doi/

Alternatively, yes you can upload the zip of https://github.com/nokaut/wsknn/releases if you'd rather.

SimonMolinsky commented 1 year ago

Thank you for the link to the tutorial! Following it, I created a new Zenodo archive here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8414247

It is linked to the GitHub release of the source code (1.2.0). Metadata is the same as before.

AoifeHughes commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.8414247 as archive

openjournals / joss-reviews

[REVIEW]: WSKNN - Weighted Session-based K-NN recommender system #5639

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

Review checklist for @svchb

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @inpefess

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Paper

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance