search

openjournals / joss-reviews

Reviews for the Journal of Open Source Software
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
718 stars 38 forks source link

[REVIEW]: Statmanager-kr: A user-friendly statistical package for python in pandas #6642

Closed editorialbot closed 6 days ago

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@ckdckd145<!--end-author-handle-- (Changseok Lee) Repository: https://github.com/ckdckd145/statmanager-kr Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.8.1.14 Editor: !--editor-->@teonbrooks<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @catstats, @behinger Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.13901226

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d88c1a10e30fbfc39104534970afcd23"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d88c1a10e30fbfc39104534970afcd23/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d88c1a10e30fbfc39104534970afcd23/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d88c1a10e30fbfc39104534970afcd23)

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

@catstats & @behinger, 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 @teonbrooks 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 @catstats

📝 Checklist for @behinger

editorialbot commented 6 months 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 6 months ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.04 s (858.2 files/s, 163685.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          20           1265            373           3356
Markdown                         3            147              0            372
CSV                              8              0              0            224
TeX                              1              0              0             50
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            477             30
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            33           1412            850           4032
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   130  ckdckd145
    11  DESKTOP-CSHOME
     1  Changseok Lee
editorialbot commented 6 months ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1080/0307507032000058064 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-011 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01026 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Statistics for the Social Sciences: Moving Toward ...

INVALID DOIs

- None
editorialbot commented 6 months ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1796

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

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

catstats commented 5 months ago

Review checklist for @catstats

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

behinger commented 5 months ago

Review checklist for @behinger

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

catstats commented 5 months ago

@https://github.com/ckdckd145/statmanager-kr/issues/13

ckdckd145 commented 5 months ago

@catstats @behinger

Hi ! Thanks for reviewing my article and source code of the statmanager-kr. Also thank you very much for overall positive feedbacks (I hope I read correctly)

I briefly checked all comments and now planning to revise all related parts soon. I will change the codes, and whenever I commit, I'll mention it in the related issue in my repository. But, I think this to take a while, so I'd appreciate your patience. (Thanks!)

To be honest, I'm not a developer by trade, and I'm new to the Joss review process, so I'm not sure if this is the right way to do it. Please let me know if this is something I should do differently. Thank you so much. :)

ref @teonbrooks

crvernon commented 4 months ago

:wave: @teonbrooks - please check in on this one weekly to make sure things are progressing. Thanks!

teonbrooks commented 4 months ago

@crvernon thanks for the heads up on that.

thanks @catstats and @behinger for your diligent work in reviewing the software and its paper! I really appreciate your hard work and effort.

it looks like there are some outstanding requests @behinger raised in https://github.com/ckdckd145/statmanager-kr/issues/12 that would need to be resolved. I believe that @ckdckd145 is working to resolve these. I think once these remaining issues are resolved, we can do a final pass and make the decision

ckdckd145 commented 4 months ago

@teonbrooks

Hi! Nowadays I'm working to resolve the issues from @behinger. I apologize for the delay as I am working on my job. I will keep you informed of my work as much as possible.

Thanks you as always!

behinger commented 3 months ago

With https://github.com/ckdckd145/statmanager-kr/issues/12 I think my concerns were nicely addressed

ckdckd145 commented 3 months ago

@behinger

Thanks for reviewing my software!

ref @teonbrooks

ckdckd145 commented 3 months ago

@teonbrooks

Hi! ✋🏼

I apologize for the long delay, but it looks like the review has been completed, can you please tell me what to do now, I'm new to the JOSS process so I'm not sure.

Thank you very much 😄

teonbrooks commented 3 months ago

@ckdckd145, no worries, it has been great watching how both the package and paper have improved over the review cycle.

@catstats, anything you would like to add or are you happy where things have landed?

@behinger, I take it that you are satisfied with the paper and package.

catstats commented 3 months ago

@teonbrooks Thank you for asking. This package looks good to me.

ckdckd145 commented 3 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 3 months ago

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

ckdckd145 commented 3 months ago

@teonbrooks

Hi! I made little revisions to the article to remove typos and misrepresentations. 😄

crvernon commented 2 months ago

@teonbrooks this one looks like it is almost ready for you to recommend acceptance on. Could you make your editing pass and then recommend acceptance if you believe it is ready?

teonbrooks commented 2 months ago

@crvernon I noticed some formatting issues in the pdf rendering of the manuscript, specifically, I see some overflow of text in some columns. are there ways to have the typesetting adjusted? Is that done at this stage?

crvernon commented 2 months ago

@teonbrooks this is the point in the review that you do your pass and once you are satisfied you comment the following in the thread which notifies me that all is ready for final approval. Here are the things I normally check when I edit that you can do now:

You still need to ensure these things are accounted for. You should generate your own checklist using the command found here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/editorial_bot.html#post-review-checklist

This also tells you how to set the version and DOI for the archive. Feel free to follow up on Slack if you have any questions.

ckdckd145 commented 2 months ago

@teonbrooks

Hi! I hope you are having a great day. Is there something you need me to take care of, and if so, please feel free to tell me. Thank you!

ref @crvernon

teonbrooks commented 2 months ago

hi @ckdckd145, I just provided a few edits to the manuscript in your repo

ckdckd145 commented 2 months ago

@teonbrooks

Hi! Thanks for doing that. I checked your edits and completed merging. Thanks!

ckdckd145 commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

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

ckdckd145 commented 1 month ago

@teonbrooks

I hope you're having some good days. Is it okay if I revise the abstract of an article now? I don't know the current process, so I'm not sure if it's okay.

Thanks!

teonbrooks commented 1 month ago

hi @ckdckd145. for the abstract revision, is it a substantive change or just some general editing? I think it would be generally ok if the abstract doesn't change significantly

teonbrooks commented 1 month ago

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance

teonbrooks commented 1 month ago

@ckdckd145, would you like to make a new version of your package to capture the manuscript changing? I would do it after you finish the abstract edits.

ckdckd145 commented 1 month ago

@teonbrooks

Hi! Yes, exactly. I will make a ner version for abstract revision. The content of abstract will not be changed, just I want to improve the quality of the sentences :)

I will notify after ther release a new version. Maybe this probably won't take long. Thanks !

ckdckd145 commented 1 month ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

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

ckdckd145 commented 1 month ago

@teonbrooks

Hi! I make a revision in my github repository. Also, I generate the new pdf.

By the way, I find the erorrs in importing statsmodels in macOS. I did a search and found that others are also experiencing this error on macOS. [Link]

I'll keep an eye on it and make sure there are no issues.

Anyway, the abstract modification is done. If you're able, I'd appreciate it if you could go through the following process. :)

Thanks!

teonbrooks commented 1 month ago

@ckdckd145 could you create a new version tag so that the most up-to-date version will be tied to the article

teonbrooks commented 1 month ago

@crvernon I noticed on page 4, there is a column formatting error where the y in chi2_contingency is colliding with Chi-squared Test in the second column. is that a formatting issue we can fix?

crvernon commented 1 month ago

Hi @teonbrooks - I would think the Analysis column would overflow but it does not. I can ask around about this and run a few tests myself. However, I think the "Features" section of this paper can be removed all together because all of this info is in the documentation for the package itself. I would recommend removing it to make the paper cleaner and closer to our target 1000 word limit. If the authors wish to do so, they can mention the docs in the paper and provide a link to them.

Let me know what you think.

Thanks!

ckdckd145 commented 1 month ago

@teonbrooks

I created a new latest version tag. If you need my help to revise the article, please let me know!

Thanks !

teonbrooks commented 1 month ago

@crvernon do you mean all the subsections as well within "Features" such as "User-friendly features", "Statistical Methods", etc.?

crvernon commented 1 month ago

Yes, I think they could be removed. But that is your and the author's call. I believe that the fundamental parts of the publication are there without those sections and that they best serve the reader as part of the software documentation. This is where JOSS differs a bit from other journals. But again, I will support what you decide in this case.

teonbrooks commented 4 weeks ago

@ckdckd145, how would you feel about replacing the sections with Features in the paper with the links to the sections in the documentation: e.g. User Friendly features points to https://cslee145.notion.site/Statmanager-kr-Official-Documentation-74a610c12881402d96dc5d1654f97433 instead of the text currently there and https://cslee145.notion.site/Statmanager-kr-dded43262f784c70a37fddb11ec7c9d1

This would make the paper more concise and it will adapt with any feature changes.

After thinking about it a bit more, I'm more inclined to leave it in the documentation and link to it there than it being in the paper but I wanted to get your thoughts

ckdckd145 commented 4 weeks ago

@teonbrooks Thanks for the advise! I think revising would be better. 😃

teonbrooks commented 3 weeks ago

@ckdckd145 feel free to generate an updated copy. once that's done, I will quickly review it and get this over the finish line! :)

ckdckd145 commented 3 weeks ago

@teonbrooks I'm excited that it's almost done 😄 I made the revisions in article, also I made the new version tage (1.8.1.14).

Thanks! 👍🏼

teonbrooks commented 3 weeks ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 3 weeks ago

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

teonbrooks commented 3 weeks ago

@editorialbot set v1.8.1.14 as version