Closed editorialbot closed 10 months ago
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
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.12 s (714.0 files/s, 232893.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C/C++ Header 63 4942 2554 11393
Bourne Shell 2 458 472 3596
SVG 1 0 0 2130
C++ 3 159 329 644
Markdown 6 146 0 569
R 6 95 452 237
TeX 1 17 0 158
m4 1 31 0 145
Rmd 1 85 151 86
YAML 2 20 11 74
make 2 20 4 43
Dockerfile 1 6 0 5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 89 5979 3973 19080
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 620
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Five most similar historical JOSS papers:
BayesMFSurv: An R Package to Estimate Bayesian Split-Population Survival Models With (and Without) Misclassified Failure Events
Submitting author: @Nicolas-Schmidt
Handling editor: @marcosvital (Active)
Reviewers: @alletsee, @andybega
Similarity score: 0.8257
Estimating statistics from multi-state models using simulation with multistateutils
Submitting author: @stulacy
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @tgerke, @jenniferthompson, @rrrlw
Similarity score: 0.8209
BGGM: Bayesian Gaussian Graphical Models in R
Submitting author: @donaldRwilliams
Handling editor: @akeshavan (Retired)
Reviewers: @jayrobwilliams, @paulgovan
Similarity score: 0.8176
rbmi: A R package for standard and reference-based multiple imputation methods
Submitting author: @nociale
Handling editor: @fboehm (Active)
Reviewers: @DanielRivasMD, @JoranTiU
Similarity score: 0.8161
fitODBOD: An R Package to Model Binomial Outcome Data using Binomial Mixture and Alternate Binomial Distributions.
Submitting author: @Amalan-ConStat
Handling editor: @csoneson (Active)
Reviewers: @osorensen, @jjharden
Similarity score: 0.8158
⚠️ 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 before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.
@gvegayon – thanks for your submission to JOSS. Could you describe which aspects of the codebase (https://github.com/UofUEpiBio/defm) are the defm
package (i.e., what would need review here). There looks to possibly be some quite large dependencies included in the repo too?
Hi @arfon, sure. It would be all, with the exception of the C++ headers included under the inst/include
folder. This R package is a wrapper of a portion of a larger project I have been working over the years (barry). Other than that, the package only depends on R core R packages and Rcpp.
Got it, thanks @gvegayon.
Re-running cloc
excluding inst/include
:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bourne Shell 2 458 472 3596
SVG 1 0 0 2130
CSV 1 0 0 1731
C++ 3 159 329 644
Markdown 6 146 17 553
R 6 95 452 237
TeX 1 17 0 158
m4 1 31 0 145
Rmd 1 85 151 86
YAML 2 20 11 74
make 2 20 4 43
C/C++ Header 1 7 3 22
Dockerfile 1 6 0 5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 28 1044 1439 9424
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@editorialbot query scope
@gvegayon – as this is on the smaller-side of what we'd typically allow in JOSS I'm going to ask the wider editorial team to give their opinion on whether this is in scope for us. This will likely take a couple of weeks to complete.
Submission flagged for editorial review.
Hi @arfon, sure. It would be all, with the exception of the C++ headers included under the inst/include folder. This R package is a wrapper of a portion of a larger project I have been working over the years (barry). Other than that, the package only depends on R core R packages and Rcpp.
Should https://github.com/USCbiostats/barry
be counted as part of this submission then? The current consensus of the JOSS editorial team is that this submission doesn't meet our substantial scholarly effort criterion but perhaps we're missing something?
Thank you, @arfon. I understand the issue. From the scientific point of view, the package does implement the defm
method, making it available for other users. The barry
component of it provides the backbone for counting statistics, but the interface for model building and parameter estimation is all in the defm
package. Regarding the amount of work, sure, I can see how this falls below the 1,000 lines of code, as what I see from cloc
:
cloc src/ README.Rmd R/
14 text files.
14 unique files.
4 files ignored.
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.01 s (1001.6 files/s, 224959.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C++ 3 159 329 644
R 5 87 451 222
Rmd 1 85 151 86
C/C++ Header 1 7 3 22
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 10 338 934 974
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, I would argue that comments on R and C++ files are doxygen comments, which are thoughtful work documenting the software.
barry
is a massive library with lots of functionalities that are not used in defm
. With such a blurry line separating the defm components, I would argue it would be better to avoid it. The only component of barry
that can be distinguished as proper of defm
is the module defm
itself, so maybe that part could be included in the review:
cloc inst/include/barry/models/defm
5 text files.
5 unique files.
0 files ignored.
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.01 s (514.7 files/s, 174368.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C/C++ Header 5 396 234 1064
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 5 396 234 1064
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That said, if it makes things easier, I could work on adding some more documentation and functionality to the package.
I appreciate all your work, thanks!
:wave: @gvegayon – apologies the scope review has taken a long time to complete here. Our decision is to reject at this stage, but we encourage you to resubmit.
Concerns of the editors at this point include:
@editorialbot reject
Paper rejected.
Thank you, @arfon. Completely understand. I'll follow your advice. Thanks!
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@gvegayon<!--end-author-handle-- (George Vega Yon) Repository: https://github.com/UofUEpiBio/defm Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: 0.1-1 Editor: Pending Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Arfon Smith
Status
Status badge code:
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @gvegayon. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
@gvegayon 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: