[PRE REVIEW]: jtools: Analysis and Presentation of Social Scientific Data

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@jacob-long<!--end-author-handle-- (Jacob A. Long) Repository: https://github.com/jacob-long/jtools Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss Version: 2.2.2 Editor: !--editor-->@samhforbes<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @yjunechoe, @misken Managing EiC: Olivia Guest

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d473276e1ace9dd5fef8f01a975ace25"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d473276e1ace9dd5fef8f01a975ace25/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d473276e1ace9dd5fef8f01a975ace25/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d473276e1ace9dd5fef8f01a975ace25)

Author instructions

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

@jacob-long 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=0.10 s (1327.0 files/s, 237458.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R                               37           1871           3937           7067
SVG                             73              0              0           6680
Markdown                         9            470              0           1979
YAML                             6             48             18            286
TeX                              1             16              0            159
Rmd                              4            280            766            156
JSON                             2              0              0             38
CSS                              1              6              0             22
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           133           2691           4721          16387
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 784

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.18637/jss.v103.i01 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03393 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v095.i01 is OK
- 10.1093/geronb/gbac154 is OK
- 10.3758/s13415-021-00942-5 is OK
- 10.1177/09636625231154131 is OK
- 10.2307/2288115 is OK
- 10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00536-1 is OK
- 10.1017/S1537592707072209 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:

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

rigr: Regression, Inference, and General Data Analysis Tools in R Submitting author: @yiqunchen Handling editor: @osorensen (Active) Reviewers: @stefanocoretta, @tomsing1 Similarity score: 0.8456

The jagstargets R package: a reproducible workflow framework for Bayesian data analysis with JAGS Submitting author: @wlandau Handling editor: @galessiorob (Active) Reviewers: @AoifeHughes, @sachsmc, @JonasMoss Similarity score: 0.8402

EFAtools: An R package with fast and flexible implementations of exploratory factor analysis tools Submitting author: @mdsteiner Handling editor: @fboehm (Active) Reviewers: @jacobsoj, @chainsawriot Similarity score: 0.8380

hddtools: Hydrological Data Discovery Tools Submitting author: @cvitolo Handling editor: @arfon (Active) Reviewers: @karthik Similarity score: 0.8373

Bedtoolsr: An R package for genomic data analysis and manipulation Submitting author: @dphansti Handling editor: @mgymrek (Retired) Reviewers: @nhejazi, @mikmaksi Similarity score: 0.8358

⚠️ 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 considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[oliviaguest]

@osorensen @galessiorob @fboehm can any of you take this on? :relaxed:

[samhforbes]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @samhforbes is now the editor

[samhforbes]

@chrisaberson, @thegargiulian, @markhwhiteii would you be interested in reviewing this software for us? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[thegargiulian]

Hi @samhforbes, thanks for the invitation, but I won't be available to review for JOSS for the next two months

[fboehm]

@osorensen @galessiorob @fboehm can any of you take this on? ☺️

Sorry to have missed the invitation to edit this submission, @oliviaguest . I'll try to respond more promptly next time.

[samhforbes]

Hi @vankesteren, @yjunechoe would you be interested in reviewing this software for us? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[yjunechoe]

Happy to review!

[samhforbes]

@editorialbot add @yjunechoe as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@yjunechoe added to the reviewers list!

[vankesteren]

Sorry, not available currently!

[samhforbes]

Hi @rmhogervorst, @russellpierce would you be interested in reviewing this software for us? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[samhforbes]

@misken @RhysPeploe @cansavvy would you be interested in reviewing this software for us? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[cansavvy]

I'm definitely interested in being a reviewer for JOSS but have not worked with social science data so I might not be the best pick for this one.

[misken]

I'm willing to do it with the following caveat. I'm also not a social science person and don't work with survey data (have never used Stata - I use R quite a bit).

[samhforbes]

Hi @misken if you'd be comfortable I'd quite like your perspective on it as an R package. I'll have additional eyes on it myself as a social scientist and R user.

[misken]

Yep, @samhforbes, I'm happy to review it. This will be my first JOSS review.

[samhforbes]

@editorialbot add @misken as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@misken added to the reviewers list!

[samhforbes]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

[samhforbes]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6610.