Closed editorialbot closed 4 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
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.18637/jss.v105.i07 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00355 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v045.i03 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Comp...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation
- No DOI given, and none found for title: tidyr: Tidy Messy Data
INVALID DOIs
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2009.10.001 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.05 s (2320.6 files/s, 247177.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML 36 1050 129 6388
R 40 500 460 1240
Markdown 25 353 0 956
CSS 3 98 52 442
JavaScript 5 65 37 277
YAML 5 27 0 197
XML 1 0 0 111
TeX 1 4 0 64
SVG 1 0 1 11
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 117 2097 679 9686
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
282 Nelson-Gon
5 jordanjenkins
4 NelsonGon
2 Ronak Shah
Paper file info:
π Wordcount for paper.md
is 606
β
The paper includes a Statement of need
section
License info:
π‘ License found: GNU General Public License v3.0
(Check here for OSI approval)
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@roualdes & @JerryChiaRuiChang, thanks again for accepting to review this submission. This is the review thread for the submission. All of our communications will happen here from now on.
First, please follow the instructions in the first comment of this thread to create your review checklists.
These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied by editing your checklist comment that our EditorBot will create for you.
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. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#6697
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 2β4 weeks. Please reach out to me if you need more time. You can also use @EditorialBot
to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.
Please don't hesitate to ping me (@cheginit
) with any questions or concerns.
Hi @roualdes, @JerryChiaRuiChang, just a friendly reminder for the review.
A good idea here, to provide some helper functions for working with and understanding the scope of missing data within data frames. I'm just a little hung up on the Substantial scholarly effort checkbox.
For instance, cloc counts roughly 650 lines of code (excluding tests, blank lines, comments, and doc strings).
On the positive side of things, for sure some functions look like re-usable patterns and combinations of dplyr tooling.
On the negative side of things, however, some of the functions are wrappers around pretty standard patterns in R, e.g. sum(is.na(x))
for counting NAs, and other functions are just catching errors that dplyr already catches.
Somewhere in between positive and negative, many of these functions could be cleaned up.
drop_all_na.data.frame
drops columns or rows of the user supplied data frame depending on second argument. The doc however suggests only columns will be dropped. From a user's perspective, this seems to break POLA.recode_as_na_for.data.frame
is pretty computationally inefficient, performing way too much work. Most of this function could be reduced to just a couple of lines of code abusing the fact that R can pass operators as function arguments, see ?match.fun
.I'll stop here for now and ask for guidance on how best to proceed. Please advise @cheginit. Thanks.
Thanks @roualdes @cheginit I have decided not to publish this anymore. Thank you for your time
Thanks @Nelson-Gon for letting us know about your decision. Also, thanks to @roualdes and @JerryChiaRuiChang for agreeing to review.
@crvernon The author decided to withdraw their submission.
@editorialbot withdraw
Per:
Thanks @Nelson-Gon for letting us know about your decision. Also, thanks to @roualdes and @JerryChiaRuiChang for agreeing to review.
@crvernon The author decided to withdraw their submission.
Paper withdrawn.
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@Nelson-Gon<!--end-author-handle-- (Nelson Gonzabato) Repository: https://github.com/Nelson-Gon/mde Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss_submission Version: v0.3.2 Editor: !--editor-->@cheginit<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @roualdes, @JerryChiaRuiChang Archive: Pending
Status
Status badge code:
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
@roualdes & @JerryChiaRuiChang, 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:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @cheginit know.
β¨ 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 β¨
Checklists
π Checklist for @roualdes