[REVIEW]: Multivariate Covariance Generalized Linear Models in Python: The mcglm library

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@jeancmaia@crvernon<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @Spaak, @bkrayfield Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.12569050

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b0cf48e0bc9265d2ad754b1d33475936"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b0cf48e0bc9265d2ad754b1d33475936/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b0cf48e0bc9265d2ad754b1d33475936/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b0cf48e0bc9265d2ad754b1d33475936)

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

@Spaak & @bkrayfield, 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 @AJQuinn 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 @bkrayfield

📝 Checklist for @Spaak

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=0.68 s (319.9 files/s, 27347.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          10            584            640           3674
CSS                              4             36             12           1838
R                                1             76             74           1515
Jupyter Notebook                 4              0           7572            836
JavaScript                       6             80             88            633
TeX                              1             38              0            281
Markdown                         2             48              0            222
JSON                           184              0              0            184
YAML                             2              6              4             41
TOML                             1              5              0             25
make                             1              4              7              9
reStructuredText                 1              6              7              7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           217            883           8404           9265
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 1744

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.7287/PEERJ.PREPRINTS.1686V1 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1809.10756 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1810.09538 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v076.i01 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v084.i04 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1409.7482 is OK
- 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1987.tb01685.x is OK
- 10.1002/1097-0258(20000730)19:14<1952::AID-SIM474>3.0.CO;2-K is OK
- 10.1214/12-EJS721 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmva.2013.05.001 is OK
- 10.2307/2344614 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-21551-3_24 is OK
- 10.1214/ss/1177013604 is OK
- 10.1214/aos/1176345451 is OK
- 10.1002/9781118445112.stat07536 is OK
- 10.2307/2841583 is OK
- 10.2307/2333849 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v084.i04 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-011 is OK
- 10.1177/0962280212445834 is OK
- 10.1214/12-EJS721 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmva.2013.05.001 is OK
- 10.1093/biomet/73.1.13 is OK
- 10.1111/rssc.12145 is OK
- 10.1515/ijb-2017-0001 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

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:

AJQuinn commented 1 year ago

👋🏼 @jeancmaia @spaak @bkrayfield this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

For @spaak and @bkrayfield - As a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering

@editorialbot generate my checklist

as the top of a new comment in this thread. Please can you do this soon as a confirmation that you've seen the review starting.

These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. Summary conversation is great on this thread but try to avoid substantial discussion about the repository here, this should take place in issues on the source repository.

When discussing the submission on an issue thread, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#6037 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if any of you require some more time. We can also use EditorialBot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@AJQuinn) if you have any questions/concerns.

bkrayfield commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @bkrayfield

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/jeancmaia/mcglm?
[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 (@jeancmaia) 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?

Spaak commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @Spaak

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/jeancmaia/mcglm?
[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 (@jeancmaia) 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?

Spaak commented 10 months ago

@jeancmaia As for API docs: some more details could be added. power_fixed/maxiter/tol/tuning/weights are all underspecified. (I can imagine some things they do in the optimization step, but better to make this explicit, e.g. by briefly explaining the type of optimization done here.) Also Ntrial has a capital N (against common style).

Spaak commented 10 months ago

@jeancmaia I appreciate the extensive tutorial (https://github.com/jeancmaia/mcglm/issues/7) but that appears to be the only web presence besides the PyPI install page (and github). I'd recommend at least making sure there is a hosted version of the API docs available somewhere.

Also there are no community guidelines (see review checklist item) anywhere, I'd recommend adding these to either wherever you end up putting the web API docs or (and) simply in README.md on github.

Spaak commented 10 months ago

@jeancmaia I'd recommend going over the paper a final time for a thorough language check. While it's clearly written, there are some minor issues that should be (easy to) fix(ed).

jeancmaia commented 10 months ago

@Spaak Thanks for the comprehensive feedback. I have revamped the project by incorporating all the aforementioned items.

The new API Docs is hosted on: https://mcglm.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ The new paper is available on: https://github.com/jeancmaia/mcglm/blob/main/paper.md

It would be great if you could check the project out again. Thanks :)

AJQuinn commented 10 months ago

Thanks @Spaak for the review and to @jeancmaia for the quick response.

@bkrayfield - thanks for your work so far, do you have a sense when you'd be able to complete the review/checklist? Let me know if you need any additional input.

jeancmaia commented 6 months ago

Hey @AJQuinn, I hope you're doing well. Just to catch up. I wanted to check in to see if there's anything else you need from me to move forward with the article review. Thank you for your time!"

crvernon commented 6 months ago

:wave: @jeancmaia - I am the AEiC for this track of submissions and I can help out a bit here. I looks like there are still a few open pull requests. Can you provide some feedback on the status of those here in this thread?

:wave: @Spaak and @bkrayfield - could you provide a short update to where you are in the review process?

Thanks so much!

jeancmaia commented 6 months ago

Hey @crvernon. I have addressed all the great feedback provided by @Spaak and refactored both the library and the paper.

Thanks!

crvernon commented 6 months ago

Thanks @jeancmaia!

bkrayfield commented 6 months ago

Hello @crvernon, end of semester work has slowed me down, but making progress. Should be rounding everything up this week.

Spaak commented 6 months ago

@crvernon The only remaining feedback I have is that the tutorial and paper could contain a little bit more motivating background on why an inference with an MCGLM model is more powerful (in some sense) than something univariate/classical. But I think that is also a matter of preference (related to the journal and its scope); the software itself is adequately documented. All other points have been taken care of!

crvernon commented 5 months ago

Thanks to you both @bkrayfield and @Spaak.

:wave: @bkrayfield - I noticed that you still have a few items to check off on your list. Could you provide an estimate of when you will be able to provide feedback on these items?

Thanks!

crvernon commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot assign me as editor

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

Assigned! @crvernon is now the editor

crvernon commented 5 months ago

:wave: @bkrayfield - Just following up...

Thanks to you both @bkrayfield and @Spaak.

👋 @bkrayfield - I noticed that you still have a few items to check off on your list. Could you provide an estimate of when you will be able to provide feedback on these items?

Thanks!

bkrayfield commented 5 months ago

@crvernon Thank you for the mention. I am actively working on getting the other items completed. Given it's interplay with other work on my plate, I can give you an estimate of June 23rd to wrap everything up.

crvernon commented 5 months ago

@bkrayfield thanks for the update!

bkrayfield commented 4 months ago

@crvernon After reviewing the issues raised by @Spaak and the repo, I was able to check every item off the checklist. I did want to refer back to the community guidelines point of @Spaak. I was able to find them in the docs, but I would recommend taking them out as a separate point and adding a little more detail (more on the type of pull requests the maintainer is looking for, etc...).

crvernon commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

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

crvernon commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.7287/PEERJ.PREPRINTS.1686V1 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1809.10756 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1810.09538 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v076.i01 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v084.i04 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1409.7482 is OK
- 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1987.tb01685.x is OK
- 10.1002/1097-0258(20000730)19:14<1952::AID-SIM474>3.0.CO;2-K is OK
- 10.1214/12-EJS721 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmva.2013.05.001 is OK
- 10.2307/2344614 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-21551-3_24 is OK
- 10.1214/ss/1177013604 is OK
- 10.1214/aos/1176345451 is OK
- 10.1002/9781118445112.stat07536 is OK
- 10.2307/2841583 is OK
- 10.2307/2333849 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v084.i04 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-011 is OK
- 10.1177/0962280212445834 is OK
- 10.1214/12-EJS721 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmva.2013.05.001 is OK
- 10.1093/biomet/73.1.13 is OK
- 10.1111/rssc.12145 is OK
- 10.1515/ijb-2017-0001 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: SOLID Principles in Software Architecture and Intr...

INVALID DOIs

- None

crvernon commented 4 months ago

Thanks @bkrayfield and @Spaak! It looks like your checklists are completed now.

:wave: @jeancmaia I'll take a look now and see if we can get this moving towards publication.

General:

[x] To address the need for visibility of the community guidelines, please add in the link to your new docs (https://mcglm.readthedocs.io/) as your docs website in the "About" panel in your GitHub repository. Currently, users have to way to getting to this easily.

In the paper:

[x] LINE 56: "The foremost library statistical analysis..." should be "The foremost library for statistical analysis..."
[x] LINES 94-96: please fix the hyperlink referencing here.
[x] LIENS 97-98: Restate "...programming: The NumPy (Harris, 2020), scipy (Virtanen, 2020), and scipy.sparse." to be "...programming: NumPy (Harris, 2020) and scipy (Virtanen, 2020)."
[x] LINE 105: Change "For in-depth details, access the code-base https://github.com/jeancmaia/mcglm." to "For in-depth details, access our documentation at https://mcglm.readthedocs.io."
[x] Remove LINES 134-135, these are stated throughout.
[x] Remove the Discussion section as it has been established in the statement of need and throughout the paper. We try to keep the paper part of JOSS submissions minimal.
[x] Please ensure that all proper nouns have the correct capitalization in the bibliography. You ensure this in the bib file by wrapping a correct capitalization with curly brackets to maintain their intention once compiled. An example would be LINE 206 in which "gauss" should be "Gauss"

Thanks!

jeancmaia commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

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

jeancmaia commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.7287/PEERJ.PREPRINTS.1686V1 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1809.10756 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1810.09538 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v076.i01 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v084.i04 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1409.7482 is OK
- 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1987.tb01685.x is OK
- 10.1002/1097-0258(20000730)19:14<1952::AID-SIM474>3.0.CO;2-K is OK
- 10.1214/12-EJS721 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmva.2013.05.001 is OK
- 10.2307/2344614 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-21551-3_24 is OK
- 10.1214/ss/1177013604 is OK
- 10.1214/aos/1176345451 is OK
- 10.1002/9781118445112.stat07536 is OK
- 10.2307/2841583 is OK
- 10.2307/2333849 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v084.i04 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-011 is OK
- 10.3844/jcssp.2021.624.638 is OK
- 10.1177/0962280212445834 is OK
- 10.1214/12-EJS721 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmva.2013.05.001 is OK
- 10.1093/biomet/73.1.13 is OK
- 10.1111/rssc.12145 is OK
- 10.1515/ijb-2017-0001 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

jeancmaia commented 4 months ago

Hi, @crvernon. Thanks for your feedback. I have thoroughly addressed all items from your list and solved a missing DOI.

crvernon commented 4 months ago

👋 @jeancmaia - we are almost there! Next is just setting up the archive for your new release.

We want to make sure the archival has the correct metadata that JOSS requires. This includes a title that matches the paper title and a correct author list.

So here is what we have left to do:

[x] Conduct a GitHub release of the current reviewed version of the software and archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g., figshare, an institutional repository). Please ensure that the software archive uses the same license as the license you have posted on GitHub.
[x] Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) to ensure it has the correct metadata. This includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it). You may also add the authors' ORCID.
[x] Please respond with the DOI of the archived version and the version number of the release here

I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

jeancmaia commented 4 months ago

Hi @crvernon. Thanks for helping me throughout this process.

I released a software version named "v0.2.4" and published it at Zenodo. All metadata match appropriately.

Archived version's DOI is: 10.5281/zenodo.12569049

Thank you very much!

crvernon commented 4 months ago

Thanks @jeancmaia! A couple of simple things that need to be adjusted:

[x] The version number in your software (0.2.1) is different than the version number in your Zenodo archive (v1). Please edit the metadata in the Zenodo archive to represent the actual version of the software.
[x] The author order in your Zenodo archive is different than what is in your paper. I know that these are equal contribution but the order of listing should still be the same. You can edit this in the metadata as well.

Thanks!

jeancmaia commented 4 months ago

Thanks @crvernon. Sorry for those minor bugs. Both versions of Zenodo and the library match now; check out those urls: https://zenodo.org/records/12569050, https://github.com/jeancmaia/mcglm/tree/v0.2.4, https://pypi.org/project/mcglm/. Also, authors were rearranged correctly. Can you check it out again? Thanks!

crvernon commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot set v0.2.4 as version

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

Done! version is now v0.2.4

crvernon commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.12569050 as archive

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.12569050

crvernon commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.7287/PEERJ.PREPRINTS.1686V1 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1809.10756 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1810.09538 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v076.i01 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v084.i04 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1409.7482 is OK
- 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1987.tb01685.x is OK
- 10.1002/1097-0258(20000730)19:14<1952::AID-SIM474>3.0.CO;2-K is OK
- 10.1214/12-EJS721 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmva.2013.05.001 is OK
- 10.2307/2344614 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-21551-3_24 is OK
- 10.1214/ss/1177013604 is OK
- 10.1214/aos/1176345451 is OK
- 10.1002/9781118445112.stat07536 is OK
- 10.2307/2841583 is OK
- 10.2307/2333849 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v084.i04 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-011 is OK
- 10.3844/jcssp.2021.624.638 is OK
- 10.1177/0962280212445834 is OK
- 10.1214/12-EJS721 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmva.2013.05.001 is OK
- 10.1093/biomet/73.1.13 is OK
- 10.1111/rssc.12145 is OK
- 10.1515/ijb-2017-0001 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

:warning: Error preparing paper acceptance. The generated XML metadata file is invalid.

ID tabU003Amethods already defined
ID ref-BonatU003A2018 already defined
ID ref-MasarottoU003A2012 already defined
ID ref-KrupskiiU003A2013 already defined

jeancmaia commented 4 months ago

I have found duplicated refs on the paper.bib. Solved.

crvernon commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

openjournals / joss-reviews