[REVIEW]: validateHOT - Githubissues

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@JoshSchramm94@skanwal<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @njtierney, @jamesuanhoro Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/85d008d0fef7c4079f41ff7d1102c805"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/85d008d0fef7c4079f41ff7d1102c805/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/85d008d0fef7c4079f41ff7d1102c805/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/85d008d0fef7c4079f41ff7d1102c805)

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

@njtierney & @jamesuanhoro, 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 @skanwal 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 @njtierney

📝 Checklist for @jamesuanhoro

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=0.05 s (1374.8 files/s, 359714.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R                               52           1255           2646           6279
XML                              1              0             18           2377
Markdown                         3            265              0           1274
Rmd                              3            379            812            521
TeX                              1             34              0            289
YAML                             2             10              6             57
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            62           1943           3482          10797
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   127  JoshSchramm94
     2  Joshua Schramm
     1  Joshua Benjamin Schramm

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1419

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU General Public License v3.0 (Check here for OSI approval)

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1177/002224299005400402 is OK
- 10.1177/0022243718817004 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-540-87753-0 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v105.i10 is OK
- 10.1509/jmkr.42.1.67.56890 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.08.007 is OK
- 10.1007/s11002-014-9326-x is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01686 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4842-9268-6 is OK
- 10.1086/208920 is OK
- 10.1287/mksc.15.2.173 is OK
- 10.1177/002224379503200402 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.08.007 is OK
- 10.1111/jpim.12077 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jocm.2022.100394 is OK
- 10.1509/jmkr.48.1.140 is OK
- 10.1007/s11747-023-00997-5 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Including Holdout Choice Tasks in Conjoint Studies
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Metrics: Evaluation Metrics for Machine Learning
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ChoiceModelR: Choice Modeling in R
- No DOI given, and none found for title: choicetools: Tools for Choice Modeling, Conjoint A...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: bayesm: Bayesian Inference for Marketing/Micro-Eco...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice b...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Turf: A New Planning Approach for Product Line Ext...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Applied MaxDiff: A practitioner’s guide to best-wo...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: \textbraceleftRStan\textbraceright: the \textbrace...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Conjoint analysis method and its implementation in...

INVALID DOIs

- None

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:

njtierney commented 6 months ago

Review checklist for @njtierney

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/JoshSchramm94/validateHOT?
[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 (@JoshSchramm94) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[ ] 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.
[ ] 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?
[ ] 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

[ ] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[ ] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[ ] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[ ] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[ ] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[ ] 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

[ ] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[ ] 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?
[ ] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[ ] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[ ] 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?

skanwal commented 5 months ago

Hello @njtierney and @jamesuanhoro. Can I please check how are you going with the review of this article and if there are any blockers?

Thanks.

skanwal commented 5 months ago

@JoshSchramm94 - can I please get an update from your side too from the review side?

njtierney commented 5 months ago

@skanwal Sorry I am getting to the review this week, thanks for checking in.

JoshSchramm94 commented 5 months ago

@skanwal - I just saw that @njtierney started with the review. @njtierney thanks for reviewing :-).

jamesuanhoro commented 5 months ago

Hello @njtierney and @jamesuanhoro. Can I please check how are you going with the review of this article and if there are any blockers?

Thanks.

I'm sorry for getting to this late. May ended up being much busier than I expected. I will complete my review by next Friday.

skanwal commented 5 months ago

Thanks so much @jamesuanhoro and @njtierney for getting back to me and also for continued support as reviewers. It's truly appreciated.

jamesuanhoro commented 4 months ago

Review checklist for @jamesuanhoro

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/JoshSchramm94/validateHOT?
[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 (@JoshSchramm94) 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?

skanwal commented 3 months ago

Hello - @njtierney and @jamesuanhoro - I hope the review is going okay for you both. Please let me know of any issues.

skanwal commented 2 months ago

Hi @jamesuanhoro and @njtierney - can I please check how is the review going for this paper as there hasn't been any update in a while.

jamesuanhoro 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:

skanwal commented 1 month ago

Hello @jamesuanhoro and @njtierney - can I please check if there are any blockers for this review? It'd be helpful to speed it up as its been a while since this review was started.

jamesuanhoro commented 1 month ago

Hello @jamesuanhoro and @njtierney - can I please check if there are any blockers for this review? It'd be helpful to speed it up as its been a while since this review was started.

Hi @skanwal , I think my review is now complete, sorry for not confirming this earlier. @JoshSchramm94 did a great job with the software in the first place and has addressed all the suggestions I had.

skanwal commented 3 weeks ago

Thanks @jamesuanhoro.

@njtierney - can I please check how's the review going from your side? There are still a few unchecked items in your checklist.

njtierney commented 5 days ago

Hi @skanwal ! Sorry I will get to this by the end of next week.

openjournals / joss-reviews

[REVIEW]: validateHOT #6708

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

Review checklist for @njtierney

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @jamesuanhoro

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper