search

openjournals / joss-reviews

Reviews for the Journal of Open Source Software
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
703 stars 36 forks source link

[REVIEW]: piar: Price Index Aggregation in R #6781

Closed editorialbot closed 2 days ago

editorialbot commented 3 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@marberts<!--end-author-handle-- (Steve Martin) Repository: https://github.com/marberts/piar Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss Version: 0.8.1 Editor: !--editor-->@crvernon<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @schneiderpy, @realxinzhao Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.13323298

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/6c0612164db8d119d12b8e3283fe9acb"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/6c0612164db8d119d12b8e3283fe9acb/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/6c0612164db8d119d12b8e3283fe9acb/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/6c0612164db8d119d12b8e3283fe9acb)

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

@schneiderpy & @arne-henningsen, 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 @crvernon 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 @schneiderpy

📝 Checklist for @realxinzhao

editorialbot commented 3 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 3 months ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.03 s (2350.9 files/s, 227432.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R                               57            490           1605           3033
Markdown                         5            169              0            450
Rmd                              2            200            237            225
YAML                             5             36             12            192
TeX                              1             14              0            109
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            70            909           1854           4009
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   219  Steve Martin
    69  marberts
editorialbot commented 3 months ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1183

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 3 months ago

License info:

🟡 License found: Other (Check here for OSI approval)

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:

crvernon commented 3 months ago

👋 @marberts, @schneiderpy, and @arne-henningsen - This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above.

Both reviewers have checklists at the top of this thread (in that first comment) with the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

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 https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6781 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 the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks but please make a start well ahead of this as JOSS reviews are by their nature iterative and any early feedback you may be able to provide to the author will be very helpful in meeting this schedule.

editorialbot commented 3 months ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1017/CBO9780511720758 is OK
- 10.5089/9781484354841.069 is OK
- 10.5089/9781589063044.069 is OK
- 10.32614/RJ-2021-038 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10110159 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: Chain Indices: A Study in Price Index Theory
- No DOI given, and none found for title: IndexNumR: Index Number Calculation
- No DOI given, and none found for title: cansim: Accessing Statistics Canada Data Table and...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: cpi
- No DOI given, and none found for title: micEconIndex: Price and Quantity Indices
- No DOI given, and none found for title: hpiR: House Price Indexes
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PriceIndices: Calculating Bilateral and Multilater...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Technical Guide for the For-hire Motor Carrier Fre...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Technical Guide for the Couriers and Messengers Se...

INVALID DOIs

- None
marberts commented 3 months ago

Thanks @crvernon.

Thanks @schneiderpy and @arne-henningsen for agreeing to review. I'm looking forward to your comments.

schneiderpy commented 3 months ago

Review checklist for @schneiderpy

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

marberts commented 3 months ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 3 months ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1017/CBO9780511720758 is OK
- 10.5089/9781484354841.069 is OK
- 10.5089/9781589063044.069 is OK
- 10.32614/RJ-2021-038 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10110159 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: Chain Indices: A Study in Price Index Theory
- No DOI given, and none found for title: IndexNumR: Index Number Calculation
- No DOI given, and none found for title: cansim: Accessing Statistics Canada Data Table and...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: cpi
- No DOI given, and none found for title: micEconIndex: Price and Quantity Indices
- No DOI given, and none found for title: hpiR: House Price Indexes
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PriceIndices: Calculating Bilateral and Multilater...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Technical Guide for the For-hire Motor Carrier Fre...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Technical Guide for the Couriers and Messengers Se...

INVALID DOIs

- None
marberts 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:

marberts commented 3 months ago

Updated the paper in 3fc76e7 to incorporate @schneiderpy's suggestions in https://github.com/marberts/piar/issues/6.

crvernon commented 3 months ago

:wave: @marberts, @schneiderpy, and @arne-henningsen - it looks like you are making good progress. Could you each provide a short update to how things are going here in this thread? Thanks!

marberts commented 3 months ago

@crvernon Here's a short update from me.

I've incorporated several suggestions from @schneiderpy:

A few ideas/suggestions came up in marberts/piar#6. Some of these need more thought (i.e., changing the default behavior of argument matching), but there's good suggestions in here to make the example in the paper a bit clearer.

schneiderpy commented 2 months ago

👋 @marberts, @schneiderpy, and @arne-henningsen - it looks like you are making good progress. Could you each provide a short update to how things are going here in this thread? Thanks!

@crvernon I have almost done .. From my point of view Unexpected function results seems to be the main issue so far

marberts commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

The code snippets in the example have been re-written to address the comments in marberts/piar#7.

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:

marberts commented 2 months ago

We're almost at the 4-week mark on this review, and I want to make sure that I'm on track to address the items in the review so far.

@schneiderpy

  1. Other than the part of marberts/piar#7 about argument matching, are there any outstanding items related to the unchecked items on your checklist?
  2. Is the part about argument matching in marberts/piar#7 an acceptance blocker? (I'm interpreting it more as a comment about how R evaluates function calls than something about the functionality in the package.)

@arne-henningsen I don't see your checklist. Have you run into any issues with the package so far?

Thanks!

schneiderpy commented 2 months ago

The 4-week mark is not an upper limit

✨ 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

Responding to your questions:

  1. I have updated the checklist. The remaining unchecked items are related (in my opinion) with the #7
  2. I do agree, for example, in the below case of code chunk. This might be solved, in general, with more informative error/warning messages to guide the user.
relatives <- with(ms_prices, price_relative(price, product))
Error in price_relative(price, product) : 
  argument "product" is missing, with no default

However, I do not agree in the case where the functionality of a function results in erronous results, without adverting the user, and, furthermore, are used in subsequent computations. In my opinion, the suggested solution here seems promising. And, probably, adjusting the documentation will get rid of the warning message from the CRAN check.

marberts commented 2 months ago

Thanks, @schneiderpy. I certainly didn't mean to imply that 4 weeks was a deadline or rush anyone. I just wanted to take stock of the review and make sure I haven't missed something.

schneiderpy commented 2 months ago

Don't worry @marberts

schneiderpy commented 2 months ago

@crvernon I have completed my checklist

crvernon commented 2 months ago

:wave: @arne-henningsen - could you provide a timeline of when you think you may be able to complete your review? Thanks!

crvernon commented 2 months ago

👋 @arne-henningsen - could you provide a timeline of when you think you may be able to complete your review? Thanks!

Just following back up on this @arne-henningsen

crvernon commented 4 weeks ago

👋 :wave: @realxinzhao - Would you be willing to review this submission to JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

@realxinzhao - This is an ongoing review but I had a reviewer that has not responded. Do you have time to review this one? Thank you!

realxinzhao commented 3 weeks ago

👋 :wave: @realxinzhao - Would you be willing to review this submission to JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

@realxinzhao - This is an ongoing review but I had a reviewer that has not responded. Do you have time to review this one? Thank you!

Thanks @crvernon! Yes, I will check it out and get back to you with a timeline.

crvernon commented 3 weeks ago

@editorialbot add @realxinzhao as reviewer

Thanks so much @realxinzhao! You can generate your reviewer checklist by commenting the following:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

editorialbot commented 3 weeks ago

@realxinzhao added to the reviewers list!

realxinzhao commented 3 weeks ago

Review checklist for @realxinzhao

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

realxinzhao commented 3 weeks ago

@crvernon I have completed my review and checklist

It is a nice and neat development. Everything works as intended. I left a couple of minor writing/clarification suggestions for the software paper, which should be really easy to address. Thanks!

crvernon commented 3 weeks ago

Thanks @realxinzhao!

crvernon commented 3 weeks ago

@marberts let me know when you have addressed @realxinzhao's comments. Thanks!

marberts commented 3 weeks ago

Thanks for the quick review, @realxinzhao.

@crvernon I've addressed @realxinzhao 's comments.

realxinzhao commented 3 weeks ago

Thanks for the quick review, @realxinzhao.

@crvernon I've addressed @realxinzhao 's comments.

Thanks, @marberts! @crvernon my comments have been fully addressed.

crvernon commented 3 weeks ago

@editorialbot remove @arne-henningsen from reviewers

editorialbot commented 3 weeks ago

@arne-henningsen removed from the reviewers list!

crvernon commented 3 weeks ago

@editorialbot check references

crvernon commented 3 weeks ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 3 weeks ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1017/CBO9780511720758 is OK
- 10.3726/978-3-653-01120-3 is OK
- 10.5089/9781484354841.069 is OK
- 10.5089/9781589063044.069 is OK
- 10.32614/RJ-2021-038 is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.IndexNumR is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.cansim is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.micEconIndex is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.hpiR is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.PriceIndices is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10110159 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: cpi
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Technical Guide for the For-hire Motor Carrier Fre...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Technical Guide for the Couriers and Messengers Se...

INVALID DOIs

- None
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:

crvernon commented 3 weeks ago

👋 @marberts - we are almost there!

I only need one change in the paper:

Next is just setting up the archive for your new release.

We want to make sure the archival has the correct metadata that JOSS requires. This includes a title that matches the paper title and a correct author list.

So here is what we have left to do:

I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

marberts commented 3 weeks ago

Thanks, @crvernon.

marberts commented 2 weeks ago

@crvernon I forgot to add that the released/archived version (0.8.1) is on the main branch, along with the corrected entry in the reference list, not the joss branch used for this review.

crvernon commented 1 week ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

crvernon commented 1 week ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.13323298 as archive

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.13323298

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 0.8.1 as version