editorialbot commented 6 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@canimus@jbytecode<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @devarops, @FlorianK13 Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.12206787

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/db01d4f5a02a319fe2b4c49f68e3f859"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/db01d4f5a02a319fe2b4c49f68e3f859/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/db01d4f5a02a319fe2b4c49f68e3f859/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/db01d4f5a02a319fe2b4c49f68e3f859)

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

@devarops & @FlorianK13, 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 @jbytecode 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 @devarops

📝 Checklist for @FlorianK13

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

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/3603707 is OK
- 10.1145/3603706 is OK
- 10.1145/3580305.3599776 is OK
- 10.14778/3229863.3229867 is OK
- 10.1145/3529190.3529222 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.18 s (1879.6 files/s, 143082.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                         297           3177            824          14045
Markdown                        17           1594              0           4374
XML                              1              0              0            635
SVG                              5              5              2            213
YAML                             3              6             14            122
TOML                             1              5              1             72
TeX                              1              6              0             71
make                             1             11              0             42
Dockerfile                       2             11              2             33
INI                              1              0              0              5
Bourne Shell                     3              0              0              3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           332           4815            843          19615
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   356  Herminio Vazquez
    66  Virginie Grosboillot
    32  dependabot[bot]
     2  Demetrius Albuquerque
     1  Corey Runkel
     1  Daniel Saad
     1  Ryan Julyan
     1  Yuki
     1  dCodeYL

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1241

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

License info:

✅ License found: Apache License 2.0 (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:

jbytecode commented 6 months ago

@devarops, @FlorianK13 - Dear reviewers, you can start with creating your task lists. In that list, there are several tasks.

Whenever you perform a task, you can check on the corresponding checkbox. Since the review process of JOSS is interactive, you can always interact with the author, the other reviewers, and the editor during the process. You can open issues and pull requests in the target repo. Please mention the url of this page in there so we can keep tracking what is going on out of our world.

Please create your tasklist by typing

@editorialbot generate my checklist

Thank you in advance.

devarops commented 6 months ago

Review checklist for @devarops

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/canimus/cuallee?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@canimus) 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.)
- https://github.com/canimus/cuallee/issues/251

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?
- https://github.com/canimus/cuallee/issues/212
[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
- https://github.com/canimus/cuallee/issues/213
- https://github.com/canimus/cuallee/issues/214

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?
- https://github.com/canimus/cuallee/issues/245

Notes

Installation

pip install cuallee

Defaulting to user installation because normal site-packages is not writeable
Collecting cuallee
  Downloading cuallee-0.10.0-py3-none-any.whl (51 kB)
     ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 51.0/51.0 KB 1.8 MB/s eta 0:00:00
Collecting toolz>=0.12.0
  Downloading toolz-0.12.1-py3-none-any.whl (56 kB)
     ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 56.1/56.1 KB 2.7 MB/s eta 0:00:00
Collecting requests>=2.28
  Downloading requests-2.31.0-py3-none-any.whl (62 kB)
     ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 62.6/62.6 KB 3.8 MB/s eta 0:00:00
Requirement already satisfied: urllib3<3,>=1.21.1 in /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages (from requests>=2.28->cuallee) (1.26.5)
Requirement already satisfied: certifi>=2017.4.17 in /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages (from requests>=2.28->cuallee) (2020.6.20)
Collecting charset-normalizer<4,>=2
  Downloading charset_normalizer-3.3.2-cp310-cp310-manylinux_2_17_x86_64.manylinux2014_x86_64.whl (142 kB)
     ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 142.1/142.1 KB 6.0 MB/s eta 0:00:00
Requirement already satisfied: idna<4,>=2.5 in /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages (from requests>=2.28->cuallee) (3.3)
Installing collected packages: toolz, charset-normalizer, requests, cuallee
  WARNING: The script normalizer is installed in '/home/evaro/.local/bin' which is not on PATH.
  Consider adding this directory to PATH or, if you prefer to suppress this warning, use --no-warn-script-location.
Successfully installed charset-normalizer-3.3.2 cuallee-0.10.0 requests-2.31.0 toolz-0.12.1

FlorianK13 commented 5 months ago

Review checklist for @FlorianK13

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/canimus/cuallee?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@canimus) 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?

jbytecode commented 5 months ago

@devarops, @FlorianK13 - I have been watching the issues created in the target repo. I want to thank you - our reviewers - for such a plain and clear review. And thank you @canimus for considering our reviewers' suggestions. Please keep on touch.

FlorianK13 commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

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

FlorianK13 commented 4 months ago

@jbytecode From my side the review is finished. The package cuallee from @canimus offers a large variety of test cases for different data frameworks in python. The implementation of the software, the software tests, and the documentation page all look very good. A clear recommendation from my side to publish the paper in JOSS.

jbytecode commented 4 months ago

@FlorianK13 - Thank you for your great effort in reviewing!

devarops commented 4 months ago

@jbytecode I will finish my review this week.

jbytecode commented 4 months ago

@devarops - Thank you, we look forward to hearing from you.

devarops commented 4 months ago

@jbytecode: I am pleased to recommend the article "cuallee: A python package for data quality checks across multiple DataFrame APIs" for publication in JOSS. The software is original, high-quality, and represents a substantial scholarly effort. This article and the software will significantly interest the readers of JOSS, and I recommend it for publication.

jbytecode 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

- 10.1145/3603707 is OK
- 10.1145/3603706 is OK
- 10.1145/3580305.3599776 is OK
- 10.14778/3229863.3229867 is OK
- 10.1145/3529190.3529222 is OK
- 10.1145/2723372.2742797 is OK
- 10.1145/2872427.2883029 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Technology Trends for 2023
- No DOI given, and none found for title: cuallee: Performance Tests
- No DOI given, and none found for title: TLC Trip Record Data
- 10.5040/9781350207318.00000004 may be a valid DOI for title: Great Expectations
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Soda Core

INVALID DOIs

- 10.3389/fdata.2020.564115 is INVALID

jbytecode 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:

jbytecode commented 4 months ago

Note:

The suggested DOI

10.5040/9781350207318.00000004 may be a valid DOI for title: Great Expectations

is not the correct one.

jbytecode commented 4 months ago

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

Double check authors and affiliations (including ORCIDs)
Make a release of the software with the latest changes from the review and post the version number here. This is the version that will be used in the JOSS paper.
Archive the release on Zenodo/figshare/etc and post the DOI here.
Make sure that the title and author list (including ORCIDs) in the archive match those in the JOSS paper.
Make sure that the license listed for the archive is the same as the software license.

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance

[x] Read the text of the paper and offer comments/corrections (as either a list or a pull request)
[x] Check that the archive title, author list, version tag, and the license are correct
[x] Set archive DOI with @editorialbot set <DOI here> as archive
[x] Set version with @editorialbot set <version here> as version
[ ] Double check rendering of paper with @editorialbot generate pdf
[ ] Specifically check the references with @editorialbot check references and ask author(s) to update as needed
[ ] Recommend acceptance with @editorialbot recommend-accept

jbytecode commented 4 months ago

@canimus - I've sent a PR. This PR includes minor changes and fixes in both the bibtex and the manuscript. Please review them. If you are agree with them, please merge.

jbytecode commented 4 months ago

@canimus - Meanwhile we are proof-reading the submission, you can go on with the archiving stuff. Please create a tagged release in the software repository. Using this tagged release, create a Zenodo archive. In this archive, the author list, their ORCIDs, the title of the manuscript should match. After creating the archive, please report here the tagged release, e.g., v1.2.3, and the DOI (and URL) of the Zenodo archive. Thank you in advance.

canimus commented 4 months ago

@jbytecode Version: v0.11.0 URL: https://zenodo.org/records/12206787 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.12206787

jbytecode commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot set v0.11.0 as version

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

Done! version is now v0.11.0

jbytecode commented 4 months ago

@canimus - The metadata (the title, the list of authors, ORCIDs of authors, etc.) of the Zenodo archive and those of the submission should match. Could you please fix it and ping me again? Thank you in advance.

canimus commented 4 months ago

@jbytecode done, added the same title and the authors orcids, and change the license to Apache License 2.0 as per the original submission and repo.

jbytecode commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.12206787 as archive

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.12206787

jbytecode 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

- 10.1145/3603707 is OK
- 10.1145/3603706 is OK
- 10.1145/3580305.3599776 is OK
- 10.14778/3229863.3229867 is OK
- 10.1145/3529190.3529222 is OK
- 10.1145/2723372.2742797 is OK
- 10.1145/2872427.2883029 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Technology Trends for 2023
- No DOI given, and none found for title: cuallee: Performance Tests
- No DOI given, and none found for title: TLC Trip Record Data
- 10.5040/9781350207318.00000004 may be a valid DOI for title: Great Expectations
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Soda Core

INVALID DOIs

- 10.3389/fdata.2020.564115 is INVALID

jbytecode commented 4 months ago

@canimus - The DOI 10.3389/fdata.2020.564115 is not resolved. Could you please fix it? Could you please also check the missing DOIs and if it is possible to find the DOIs, please add them. Thank you in advance.

canimus commented 4 months ago

Hi @jbytecode I decided to remove the DOI for that reference. Even when is published here: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdata.2022.945720/full Searching for that doi in the https://doi.org directly throws an error.

canimus 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

- 10.1145/3603707 is OK
- 10.1145/3603706 is OK
- 10.1145/3580305.3599776 is OK
- 10.14778/3229863.3229867 is OK
- 10.1145/3529190.3529222 is OK
- 10.1145/2723372.2742797 is OK
- 10.1145/2872427.2883029 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Technology Trends for 2023
- No DOI given, and none found for title: cuallee: Performance Tests
- No DOI given, and none found for title: TLC Trip Record Data
- 10.5040/9781350207318.00000004 may be a valid DOI for title: Great Expectations
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Soda Core

INVALID DOIs

- None

jbytecode commented 4 months ago

It seems 10.3389/fdata.2022.945720 is a valid DOI for the submission https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdata.2022.945720/full

canimus commented 4 months ago

@jbytecode the problem is that when passing through the bot verification it qualifies it as INVALID

jbytecode commented 4 months ago

@canimus - 10.3389/fdata.2020.564115 was not passing, but 10.3389/fdata.2022.945720 is resolved. Am I wrong? You can add the same bibtex entry with the latest DOI, right?

canimus 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

- 10.1145/3603707 is OK
- 10.1145/3603706 is OK
- 10.1145/3580305.3599776 is OK
- 10.14778/3229863.3229867 is OK
- 10.1145/3529190.3529222 is OK
- 10.1145/2723372.2742797 is OK
- 10.1145/2872427.2883029 is OK
- 10.3389/fdata.2022.945720 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Technology Trends for 2023
- No DOI given, and none found for title: cuallee: Performance Tests
- No DOI given, and none found for title: TLC Trip Record Data
- 10.5040/9781350207318.00000004 may be a valid DOI for title: Great Expectations
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Soda Core

INVALID DOIs

- None

canimus commented 4 months ago

@jbytecode thanks for the correction, using the newest reference on 2022 fixed the resolution. All missing ones, are just internal references, articles and misc.

jbytecode commented 4 months ago

@canimus - It seems we solved the DOI issue. Now I am generating the latest pdf and I'll have a final proof-reading.

jbytecode 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:

jbytecode commented 4 months ago

@canimus - Please read the manuscript carefully and fix things if you encounter any errors/typos (I am also doing the same stuff). Ping me when you have done with it. Thank you in advance.

canimus commented 4 months ago

@jbytecode I downloaded the latest PDF version, and I am confident that is now good to go. It is free from typos, and readability score is good. Thank you very much for all your support, assistance and diligence, truly appreciate it.

jbytecode commented 4 months ago

@canimus - It's also okay from my side. I am now recommending an acceptance. Our track editor will make the final decision.

openjournals / joss-reviews

[REVIEW]: cuallee: A Python package for data quality checks across multiple DataFrame APIs #6684

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

Review checklist for @devarops

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Notes

Installation

Review checklist for @FlorianK13

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance