[PRE REVIEW]: Cost-Effective Big Data Orchestration Using Dagster: A Multi-Platform Approach

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@HPicatto<!--end-author-handle-- (Hernan Picatto) Repository: https://github.com/ascii-supply-networks/ascii-hydra Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main Version: v1.0.0 Editor: Pending Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1db822bc87da6077a55f4b7eba160875"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1db822bc87da6077a55f4b7eba160875/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1db822bc87da6077a55f4b7eba160875/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1db822bc87da6077a55f4b7eba160875)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @HPicatto. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@HPicatto if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, 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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.04 s (1002.4 files/s, 126057.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          29            568            416           3557
Markdown                         2             72              0            225
TOML                             4             27              2            127
TeX                              1              1              0             80
make                             1              5             21             48
JSON                             4              0              0              7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            41            673            439           4044
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    23  geoHeil
     9  Georg Heiler
     7  HPicatto
     2  Hernan

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1145/2934664 is OK
- 10.1145/3472883.3486982 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Dagster | Cloud-native Orchestration of Data Pipel...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Cost efficient alternative to databricks lock-in

❌ MISSING DOIs

- 10.1145/3514221.3526054 may be a valid DOI for title: Photon: A fast query engine for lakehouse systems
- 10.1007/s11192-020-03726-9 may be a valid DOI for title: Web mining for innovation ecosystem mapping: a fra...

❌ INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2023.12.026 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 3030

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

🔴 Failed to discover a valid open source license

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

High-performance neural population dynamics modeling enabled by scalable computational infrastructure Submitting author: @a9p Handling editor: @emdupre (Active) Reviewers: @richford, @tachukao Similarity score: 0.6583

OpenMSIStream: A Python package for facilitating integration of streaming data in diverse laboratory environments Submitting author: @eminizer Handling editor: @pibion (Retired) Reviewers: @lucask07, @SergeyYakubov Similarity score: 0.6577

EspressoDB: A scientific database for managing high-performance computing workflows Submitting author: @ckoerber Handling editor: @gkthiruvathukal (Active) Reviewers: @remram44, @ixjlyons Similarity score: 0.6551

DASF: A data analytics software framework for distributed environments Submitting author: @d-eggert Handling editor: @martinfleis (Active) Reviewers: @cjwu, @pritchardn Similarity score: 0.6507

Caliban: Docker-based job manager for reproducible workflows Submitting author: @sritchie Handling editor: @diehlpk (Active) Reviewers: @lukasheinrich, @arokem Similarity score: 0.6497

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[danielskatz]

👋 @HPicatto - thanks for your submission.

As track editor, I see a bunch of things that prevent me from moving forward on this.

1. Your repository does not look like that of a normal extensible library. I don't see any of the metadata files I would expect, such as a README and a LICENSE (The last is in fact required for JOSS submission; see https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#submission-requirements) nor documentation, packaging, installation instructions, testing, etc.
2. The paper is over 3 times as long as suggested for a JOSS paper: 3000 words vs 250-1000. Please see the example paper. JOSS requires short papers that focus on the core need and use of the software. Other information is typically in the documentation, or perhaps a theory paper that is submitted to a more traditional journal, or even a preprint/report.
3. editorialbot suggests some DOI problems, but note that not all suggested additions are necessarily correct.

If I only found the last two problems, I would pause this submission and wait for you to fix them. But given the first, I'm going to desk reject this submission now. If you want to address these three problems (or at least the first two), JOSS would welcome your resubmission.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot reject

[editorialbot]

Paper rejected.