[REVIEW]: A tool for qualitative data analysis designed to support computational thinking

[editorialbot]

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: 1.3.2 Editor: !--editor-->@ymzayek<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @SamHames, @cmaimone Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7d0c7ed7cbe8f614d986fc699ae42729"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7d0c7ed7cbe8f614d986fc699ae42729/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7d0c7ed7cbe8f614d986fc699ae42729/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7d0c7ed7cbe8f614d986fc699ae42729)

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:

@editorialbot generate my 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

[editorialbot]

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]

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

[editorialbot]

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]

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 384

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

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

[editorialbot]

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

[ymzayek]

@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.

[cmaimone]

Review checklist for @cmaimone

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/cproctor/qualitative-coding?
• [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 (@cproctor) 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?
• [ ] 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.
• [ ] 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)?
• [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?

[cproctor]

Thanks for the feedback--I have accepted the proposals and updated the repo.

[cproctor]

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.

[cproctor]

I believe all open issues have now been addressed. When testing, please make sure you have version 1.4.1 or better. Thanks!

[ymzayek]

@cmaimone is your checklist up to date? If so, can you please clarify what is left to do to address the points not checked?

[ymzayek]

@SamHames are you able to get a review going soon?

[cmaimone]

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

[cproctor]

Thanks to everyone involved in the ongoing review. I believe I have adequately addressed all open issues in the latest release, 1.5.2.