Closed editorialbot closed 1 month 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
- 10.1145/3287324.3287440 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: NVivo
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Plain Person’s Guide to Plain Text Social Scie...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Realizing mixed-methods approaches with MAXQDA
- No DOI given, and none found for title: UNIX Time-Sharing System
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Delphi technique: A credible research methodol...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Qualitative and mixed methods data analysis using ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Qualitative Data Analysis
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Atlas. ti for qualitative data analysis
INVALID DOIs
- None
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.05 s (1516.2 files/s, 119297.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 71 475 378 3791
reStructuredText 2 210 64 717
XSD 1 7 32 462
Markdown 2 21 0 112
TeX 1 1 0 67
TOML 1 6 0 30
DOS Batch 1 8 1 26
YAML 1 4 3 10
make 1 4 7 9
HTML 1 2 0 5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 82 738 485 5229
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
200 Chris Proctor
3 Chris
3 Varun Bhatt
2 dependabot[bot]
Paper file info:
📄 Wordcount for paper.md
is 384
✅ The paper includes a Statement of need
section
License info:
🟡 License found: Other
(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:
@SamHames and @cmaimone,
Dear reviewers, you can start your review by creating your tasklist with the following command:
@editorialbot generate my checklist
In that list, there are several tasks. Whenever you perform a task, you can check on the corresponding checkbox. You can also reference the JOSS reviewer guidelines which is linked in first comment in this thread. 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 that we can keep tracking what is going on.
Thank you in advance.
Thanks for the feedback--I have accepted the proposals and updated the repo.
Thanks for catching the issues with qc corpus import
in the tutorial; I have corrected the docs and tested the changes. No changes were needed to the software itself.
I believe all open issues have now been addressed. When testing, please make sure you have version 1.4.1 or better. Thanks!
@cmaimone is your checklist up to date? If so, can you please clarify what is left to do to address the points not checked?
@SamHames are you able to get a review going soon?
My checklist is up to date. I was waiting on updates that were made yesterday to get a chance to use the software. Should be able to pick it up this week
Thanks to everyone involved in the ongoing review. I believe I have adequately addressed all open issues in the latest release, 1.5.2.
Hello, really sorry it's taken so long to get to this review.
In general I'm quite happy to see this piece of software, and I really appreciate the clear design rationale and purpose in which it's aimed - this is something I'd love to see much more of from other projects.
In terms of the software itself, I've raised a few issues (and might raise another one or two), the only one that's a blocker for the review is https://github.com/cproctor/qualitative-coding/issues/65
In terms of the JOSS paper itself, I think a bit of expansion is needed to contextualise the statement of need and the software itself. I expect most of this can be drawn from the existing background/rationale included in the documentation. In particular I'd really want to see added:
Kidder, L. H., & Fine, M. (1987). Qualitative and quantitative methods: When stories converge. New directions for program evaluation, 1987(35), 57-75.
HI @SamHames, thank you for the thoughtful feedback, both on the software and on the argument. Thanks again to @cmaimone for raising issues earlier which would surely have gotten in your way as well.
I have addressed all the open issues in v1.5.4, and closed the issues--please let me know if you run into additional problems, or feel that my solutions are suboptimal. I have also revised the paper in response to your feedback; here's a summary of changes:
- A background section or paragraph that introduces qualitative research for a non-qualitative audience (easier said than done, I know, but the statement of need assumes a lot of knowledge).
I agree, a background section is an improvement. I have added background on QDA and on CT, drawing largely on the documentation as you suggest.
- Incorporation of the differences between qualitative data analysis in quantitative/mixed projects and pure qualitative projects. I find Kidder and Fine's (1987) big Q, little q qualitative distinction is a useful reference to direct people to.
I appreciate your sharing Kidder and Fine (1987)--I had not seen this before, and agree that it is a helpful distinction. I tried to incorporate little-q/big-Q with the existing framing, which distinguishes QDA as a method from qualitative/quantitative/mixed research designs.
- A further expansion of what this means: "they are generally designed to protect users from complexity rather than providing affordances for engaging with complexity via algorithms and data structures". In particular some appropriate citation or situation within the literature. In many respects I'd say that the approach taken in qc also "protects users from complexity" by simply not engaging with many of the complexities that these packages routinely handle (such as annotation of arbitrary regions of text, preservation of rich document structure, multimodal annotation etc). qc gives up certain kinds of complexity to enable other kinds of engagement with textual qualitative data - it occupies a new and different space with different embedded values rather than a "better" space (and this is good!).
I have substantially reworked this section, including backing off from the specific claim you point out--I don't think it's my main point here to argue about the extent to whichqc
and conventional QDA abstract away complexity in their interfaces. (I have a related point in the documentation around how best to deal with leaky abstractions, which I'd also like to explore further--somewhere else.) Instead, I have tried to center the statement of need: users who would be ready to use CT in their QDA, but aren't well-served by the affordances of existing QDA tools.
@cproctor - Thanks for the edits with the paper - I appreciate the reworked focus. I'm keen to see the further exploration of the ideas you're talking about in other venues too, this is very underexplored territory.
@ymzayek - I don't have anything further to add here, I'm happy to accept this submission.
Just went to run through the example one more time to follow up on closed issues, but ran into an error. https://github.com/cproctor/qualitative-coding/issues/67
Ah, I'm sorry--a careless mistake. I didn't have the latest version active when I ran the tests before deployment. This was an error introduced while correcting another issue.
This is fixed in 1.5.6; all tests passing and I have confirmed that the commands in the vignette work as expected.
I've posted https://github.com/cproctor/qualitative-coding/issues/68 but it's more of a bug report than an issue for the JOSS review. I was able to run through everything now. I still ran into issues when I did anything unexpected (for example, accidentally edited a source document when coding), so I would encourage a reconsideration of the workflow. But I think it meets the JOSS requirements at this point.
@cmaimone thanks again for your reviewing--I will reflect on the workflow and think about how it can be made less error-prone.
Thanks again to both reviewers. I recognize it's been quite a bit of iterative work, and am grateful. @ymzayek now that both checklists are complete, is there a command we need to send to the editorialbot?
Thanks everyone for all your work on this! I'm going to post the post-review checklist so @cproctor and I can finish up the last tasks to get this submitted
@editorialbot set <DOI here> as archive
@editorialbot set <version here> as version
@editorialbot generate pdf
@editorialbot check references
and ask author(s) to update as needed@editorialbot recommend-accept
@editorialbot generate pdf
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
✅ OK DOIs
- 10.1002/ev.1459 is OK
- 10.1145/3287324.3287440 is OK
🟡 SKIP DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: NVivo
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Plain Person’s Guide to Plain Text Social Scie...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Realizing mixed-methods approaches with MAXQDA
- No DOI given, and none found for title: UNIX Time-Sharing System
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Delphi technique: A credible research methodol...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Practices of Distributed Intelligence and Designs ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Qualitative and mixed methods data analysis using ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Qualitative Data Analysis
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Atlas. ti for qualitative data analysis
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Research Notebook: Computational Thinking—What and...
❌ MISSING DOIs
- 10.21236/ad0289565 may be a valid DOI for title: Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework
❌ INVALID DOIs
- None
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
My post-review author checklist is complete. Thanks!
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.13784403 as archive
Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.13784403
@editorialbot set v1.6.0 as version
Done! version is now v1.6.0
Hi @cproctor I think the paper is almost ready. Can you just fix these minor typos?
L39: Atlas.TI -> ATLAS.ti L39: MaxQDA -> MAXQDA L42 wht -> with
@ymzayek thank you so much! I have just pushed the requested updates. Do you need a new version of the software release with these changes to the paper? No code has changed, just these final edits.
@editorialbot generate pdf
@cproctor thanks for the update. No need to release a new version
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Thank you @cproctor
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
✅ OK DOIs
- 10.21236/ad0289565 is OK
- 10.1002/ev.1459 is OK
- 10.1145/3287324.3287440 is OK
🟡 SKIP DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: NVivo
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Plain Person’s Guide to Plain Text Social Scie...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Realizing mixed-methods approaches with MAXQDA
- No DOI given, and none found for title: UNIX Time-Sharing System
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Delphi technique: A credible research methodol...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Practices of Distributed Intelligence and Designs ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Qualitative and mixed methods data analysis using ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Qualitative Data Analysis
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Atlas. ti for qualitative data analysis
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Research Notebook: Computational Thinking—What and...
❌ MISSING DOIs
- None
❌ INVALID DOIs
- None
: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/5959, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept
@editorialbot generate pdf
🔍 checking out the following:
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
:wave: @cproctor - thank you for the well written submission which makes my job much easier. I just have the following few items for you to address before I move to accept this work for publication:
In the paper:
These changes do not require an additional release. Please let me know when you have addressed them. Thanks!
@cproctor just a reminder of the above outstanding items. Thanks!
@editorialbot generate pdf
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@cproctor<!--end-author-handle-- (Chris Proctor) Repository: https://github.com/cproctor/qualitative-coding Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.6.0 Editor: !--editor-->@ymzayek<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @SamHames, @cmaimone Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.13784403
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
@SamHames & @cmaimone, 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 @ymzayek 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 @cmaimone
📝 Checklist for @SamHames