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

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@ckdckd145@teonbrooks<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @catstats, @behinger Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.13901226

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 3 weeks ago

Done! version is now v1.8.1.14

teonbrooks commented 2 weeks ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 2 weeks 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

🟡 SKIP DOIs

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

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

teonbrooks commented 2 weeks ago

@ckdckd145 one last thing, could you create an archive (on Zenodo, figshare, or etc.) and provide the corresponding DOI? thanks!

ckdckd145 commented 2 weeks ago

@teonbrooks I made the DOI with zenodo !

Thanks 😄

teonbrooks commented 2 weeks ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.13840988 as archive

editorialbot commented 2 weeks ago

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.13840988

teonbrooks commented 2 weeks ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 2 weeks ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 2 weeks 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

🟡 SKIP DOIs

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

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

teonbrooks commented 2 weeks ago

@ckdckd145 thank you so much for your patience throughout this process!

thank you again @behinger and @catstats for reviewing!

editorialbot commented 2 weeks ago

:wave: @openjournals/dsais-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof :point_right::page_facing_up: Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/5921, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

ckdckd145 commented 2 weeks ago

@teonbrooks

Thank you so much for your help! I'm very excited to publish my article in JOSS 😄 Also, special thanks to @behinger @catstats for reviewing my software 👍🏼

crvernon commented 2 weeks ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

🔍 checking out the following:

[x] reviewer checklists are completed or addressed
[x] version set
[x] archive set
[x] archive names (including order) and title in archive matches those specified in the paper
[x] archive uses the same license as the repo and is OSI approved as open source
[x] archive DOI and version match or redirect to those set by editor in review thread
[x] paper is error free - grammar and typos
[x] paper is error free - test links in the paper and bib
[x] paper is error free - refs preserve capitalization where necessary
[x] paper is error free - no invalid refs without justification

editorialbot commented 2 weeks ago

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

crvernon commented 1 week ago

:wave: @ckdckd145 - I just need you to address the following before I move forward with accepting this for publication:

In your archive:

[ ] The title and authors (including the author order) in your Zenodo archive should match those represented in your paper exactly. Please edit the Zenodo archive's metadata to match these fields to what is in your paper.
[x] Also, the license specified in your Zenodo archive should match what is used in your code repository.

In your paper:

[x] LINE 12: "Scipy" should be "SciPy"
[x] LINE 12: "Statsmodels" should be "statsmodels"; I believe the capitalized the "S" in the title of the journal article because it was the start of a sentence; however, the package has it all lower case.
[x] LINE 23: "Scipy" should be "SciPy"
[x] LINE 24: "Statsmodels" should be "statsmodels"
[x] LINES 23 and 24: The citations for SciPy and statsmodels are switched up.
[x] LINE 29: Use ")" instead of "." after your numbered list. For example, "...1) read data..."
[x] LINE 30: No need for the dot in front of the method name or the parenthesis after; code formatting is ok. So it should read: "3) execute the progress method..."
[x] LINE 31: No need for the dot in front of the method names for Pandas functions or the parenthesis after; code formatting is ok. Also, I believe these are functions and not methods as a part of a class.
[x] LINE 46: I would change "datasets" here to "data types" because you are directly reference the Pandas DataFrame data type here.
[x] LINE 47-49: Missing content after "post-hoc". Are you referring to post hoc processing, e.g., post processing? These few sentences read a bit off. How about the following as a recommended fix at the start of the paragraph:

Statmanager-kr also is able to perform additional post processing directly by setting posthoc to True in the progress method. Results can then be visualized by calling the figure method from the output variable or instance of progress. Although...
[x] Throughout, no need to place the dot before method names and the parenthesis after when you are discussing them as a method or function in the sentence and using code formatting on their names. I'll not mention these from now on, so please just check the document for these.
[x] LINE 72: the "p" in "python" should be capitalized. This can be done in the bib file by using curly brackets around the characters that you wish to maintain formatting of.
[x] LINE 78: the "p" in "python" should be capitalized.

Let me know when you have finished these and I'll take another look. Thanks!

ckdckd145 commented 1 week ago

@crvernon

Hi! ✋🏼 I appreciate your feedback. I just make revisions in my articles. Lines related to the feedback about "post-hoc" also revised to make it clear. Actually it was about post-hoc analysis in scientific statistics. Let me give you the link about post-hoc analysis.

And... The DOI changed when I issued a new release. 😢 (10.5281/zenodo.13901218) I think this related to my unfamiliarity with zenodo. Sorry about that 😓

Thank you!

ref @teonbrooks

crvernon commented 1 week ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

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

crvernon commented 1 week ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

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

crvernon commented 1 week ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.13901218 as archive

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.13901218

crvernon commented 1 week ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

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

crvernon commented 6 days ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 6 days ago

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

crvernon commented 6 days ago

:wave: @ckdckd145 - there was still a capitalization issue in your references, so I set up a PR from a fork into your paper branch that should take care of this. Please see and review. Let me know when this makes it into your branch and I'll check the status again. Thanks!

ckdckd145 commented 6 days ago

@crvernon

Sorry for the disturbance 😓 . I merged your fork, and re-release. DOI is also changed (sorry 😢 ) -> 10.5281/zenodo.13901226

Thanks!

crvernon commented 6 days ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

No problem at all @ckdckd145. That's what this process is all about. We will work together to get it done the best we can with the goal of getting your work published so others can benefit from it. Thanks!

editorialbot commented 6 days ago

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

crvernon commented 6 days ago

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot commented 6 days ago

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

crvernon commented 6 days ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.13901226 as archive

editorialbot commented 6 days ago

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.13901226

editorialbot commented 6 days ago

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

``` cff-version: "1.2.0" authors: - family-names: Lee given-names: Changseok orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8825-5571" doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13901218 message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the Journal of Open Source Software. preferred-citation: authors: - family-names: Lee given-names: Changseok orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8825-5571" date-published: 2024-10-10 doi: 10.21105/joss.06642 issn: 2475-9066 issue: 102 journal: Journal of Open Source Software publisher: name: Open Journals start: 6642 title: "Statmanager-kr: A User-friendly Statistical Package for Python in Pandas" type: article url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06642" volume: 9 title: "Statmanager-kr: A User-friendly Statistical Package for Python in Pandas" ```

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

editorialbot commented 6 days ago

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot commented 6 days ago

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/5987
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06642
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

crvernon commented 6 days ago

🥳 Congratulations on your new publication @ckdckd145! Many thanks to @teonbrooks for editing and @catstats and @behinger for your time, hard work, and expertise!! JOSS wouldn't be able to function nor succeed without your efforts.

Please consider becoming a reviewer for JOSS if you are not already: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join

editorialbot commented 6 days ago

:tada::tada::tada: Congratulations on your paper acceptance! :tada::tada::tada:

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following

code snippets

``` Markdown: [![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06642/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06642) HTML: reStructuredText: .. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06642/status.svg :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06642 ```

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

openjournals / joss-reviews