[PRE REVIEW]: mathlib: A Scala package for readable, verifiable and sustainable simulations of formal theory

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@markblokpoel<!--end-author-handle-- (Mark Blokpoel) Repository: https://github.com/markblokpoel/mathlib Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss Version: v0.9.0 Editor: !--editor-->@danielskatz<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @bzz, @larkz Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/713c6a7eef58b64966588b2b87d948c4"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/713c6a7eef58b64966588b2b87d948c4/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/713c6a7eef58b64966588b2b87d948c4/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/713c6a7eef58b64966588b2b87d948c4)

Author instructions

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

@markblokpoel 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 (487.6 files/s, 27791.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Markdown                         1             22              0             84
TeX                              1              4              0             38
YAML                             1              1              4             18
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                             3             27              4            140
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 711

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a valid open source license

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1177/1745691620970585 is OK
- 10.1177/1745691620970604 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot set main as branch

[editorialbot]

Done! branch is now main

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot check repository

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.02 s (2039.6 files/s, 194342.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scala                           45            502           2076           1707
Markdown                         1             26              0             72
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            46            528           2076           1779
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot set joss as branch

[editorialbot]

Done! branch is now joss

[danielskatz]

@markblokpoel - thanks for your submission. While I look for an editor, you could help by suggesting possible reviewers by mentioning 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.

[danielskatz]

👋 @majensen - do you think you would be able to edit this submission?

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot invite @majensen as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[markblokpoel]

@markblokpoel - thanks for your submission. While I look for an editor, you could help by suggesting possible reviewers by mentioning 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.

Thank you Daniel! I've gone through the list and I think the following people will have the ideal expertise:

• Kraks
• burch-cm
• bzz
• soodoku

If they are not available, then these also have relevant expertise:

• mahfuz05062
• larkz
• jjerphan
• neurons

Hope this helps!

[danielskatz]

👋 @majensen - just checking with you again to see if you could edit this ...

[majensen]

Hi @danielskatz - I'm afraid this is beyond my expertise, I will have to decline.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

Other editors who are closer to the subject are occupied currently, so rather than waiting a while, I'll try

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @danielskatz is now the editor

[danielskatz]

👋 @Kraks - would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS?

[danielskatz]

👋 @burch-cm - would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS?

[danielskatz]

👋 @bzz - would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS?

[danielskatz]

👋 @soodoku - would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS?

[soodoku]

👋 @soodoku - would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS?

I don't believe I have the right skills here to do a good job.

[danielskatz]

👋 @mahfuz05062, @larkz, @jjerphan, @neurons - would a couple of you be willing to review this JOSS submission?

[jjerphan]

Hi @danielskatz, thanks for proposing, unfortunately I do not have any bandwidth for reviewing submissions to JOSS.

[larkz]

@danielskatz many thanks for nominating me, I'd be happy to review this. My duties are a bit full this semester, but how does a completion date around mid-November/early December sound?

[danielskatz]

@larkz - we normally try to have reviews complete in about 4 weeks.

[bzz]

@danielskatz I'll be happy to help reviewing it, starting from mid. September.

[danielskatz]

Thanks @bzz - I'll add you to the system, but we won't start until we find at least one more reviewer

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @bzz as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@bzz added to the reviewers list!

[danielskatz]

👋 @HaoZeke, @xtruan, @pritchardn - Would one of you be willing to review this submission?

[danielskatz]

👋 @darrenjw and @romac - Would one of you be willing to review this submission (short paper and software) for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[darrenjw]

I've read the paper and spent half an hour looking at the code repositories. But I still have no clue what it is, what it does, or what problem it is trying to solve. This suggests that either I don't have the expertise to review it, or that neither the paper nor the software are ready for formal review. Possibly both. I can attempt to review it if you like, but I'm not sure how helpful it will be.

[danielskatz]

@darrenjw - thanks for trying.

[darrenjw]

Actually, having now skimmed the associated online textbook, I think that the author may have re-discovered property-based testing. So my advice to the author would be to carefully study existing property-based testing frameworks for Scala, such as ScalaCheck - https://scalacheck.org/

[danielskatz]

👋 @markblokpoel - I would appreciate your thoughts on the comment above ☝️

[xtruan]

Hi @danielskatz, unfortunately I don't have the capacity to review this at the moment.

[bzz]

I've read the paper and spent half an hour looking at the code repositories. But I still have no clue what it is, what it does, or what problem it is trying to solve.

After a cursory glance I had to admit beeing a bit confused. But I’m not an expert on cognitive science or psychology. @darrenjw would be curious to know if looking at the book accompanying the software https://computationalcognitivescience.github.io/lovelace/part_i/intro helps to clarify the library purpose/applications?

[danielskatz]

👋 @markblokpoel - I would also appreciate your thoughts on the comment above ☝️, in addition to the other one.

[danielskatz]

👋 @markblokpoel - ping...

[markblokpoel]

Dear @danielskatz ,

I'm sorry for my delayed response. I'm currently completely overwhelmed with teaching. I see there I have not made clear the purpose of my software, and I need a time to write a constructive reply. The feedback has been helpful. I hope to get back to you in two weeks time, when my teaching load is less.

Kind regards, Mark

[danielskatz]

👋 @markblokpoel - Do you have a response at this point? If you don't have time to work on this, we can mark is as withdrawn, and let you resubmit a new version later that addresses the issues @bzz has brought up

[markblokpoel]

Actually, having now skimmed the associated online textbook, I think that the author may have re-discovered property-based testing. So my advice to the author would be to carefully study existing property-based testing frameworks for Scala, such as ScalaCheck - https://scalacheck.org/

@danielskatz sorry for taking so long to reply. With respect to the comment above, it’s not property-based testing. The library has a different goal, viz., to facilitate writing code that is provably correct given a formal specification.

[danielskatz]

@danielskatz many thanks for nominating me, I'd be happy to review this. My duties are a bit full this semester, but how does a completion date around mid-November/early December sound?

@larkz - given the current date, I'm going to accept your offer, and assign you, and start the review

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @larkz as reviewer