search

ropensci / software-review

rOpenSci Software Peer Review.
286 stars 104 forks source link

Presubmission inquiry - melt: Multiple Empirical Likelihood Tests #549

Closed markean closed 1 year ago

markean commented 1 year ago

Submitting Author Name: Eunseop Kim Submitting Author Github Handle: !--author1-->@markean<!--end-author1-- Repository: https://github.com/markean/melt Submission type: Pre-submission Language: en

Type: Package
Package: melt
Title: Multiple Empirical Likelihood Tests
Version: 1.6.0
Authors@R: c(
    person("Eunseop", "Kim", , "kim.7302@osu.edu", role = c("aut", "cre")),
    person("Steven", "MacEachern", role = c("ctb", "ths")),
    person("Mario", "Peruggia", role = c("ctb", "ths"))
  )
Description: Performs multiple empirical likelihood tests for linear and
    generalized linear models. The core computational routines are
    implemented using the 'Eigen' C++ library and 'RcppEigen' interface,
    with OpenMP for parallel computation. Details of multiple testing
    procedures are given in Kim, MacEachern, and Peruggia (2021)
    <arxiv:2112.09206>.
License: GPL (>= 2)
URL: https://github.com/markean/melt, https://markean.github.io/melt/
BugReports: https://github.com/markean/melt/issues
Depends: 
    R (>= 4.0.0)
Imports: 
    graphics,
    methods,
    Rcpp,
    stats
Suggests: 
    covr,
    ggplot2,
    knitr,
    microbenchmark,
    rmarkdown,
    spelling,
    testthat (>= 3.0.0),
    withr
LinkingTo: 
    BH,
    dqrng,
    Rcpp,
    RcppEigen
VignetteBuilder: 
    knitr
Config/testthat/edition: 3
Encoding: UTF-8
Language: en-US
LazyData: true
NeedsCompilation: yes
Roxygen: list (markdown = TRUE, roclets = c ("namespace", "rd",
    "srr::srr_stats_roclet"))
RoxygenNote: 7.2.0

Scope

emilyriederer commented 1 year ago

Hi @markean ! Thank you for your submission to rOpenSci

I'm tagging in @mpadge to answer your question on the review timeline for statistical packages and interactions with JSS

mpadge commented 1 year ago

Thanks @emilyriederer, and note that we'll soon have a new command for stats submissions, @ropensci-review-bot check srr, to check compliances with standards. In the meantime, this package gives this result:

'srr' standards compliance:

This package complies with > 50% of all standads and may be submitted.

@markean Some responses to your questions:

How long does the peer-review process take on average?

For standard (non-stats) submissions, we generally aim to review packages within 2-3 months. The statistical software review process is still very much a work-in-progress, and requires quite a bit more effort on the part of all involved. This means reviews thus far are taking longer than conventional reviews, and the entire process is definitely taking longer than the standard 2-3 months. It is nevertheless early days, and we will endeavour to find out why and how the process is slower than for non-stats reviews, and will do our best to speed things up. I'd suggest ou should at present expect the process to take vaguely between 3 and 6 months.

The plan is to submit the package with a manuscript to the Journal of Statistical Software.

That's great news! We have two members of the editorial borad of JSS as editors of our statistical peer review program (ping @rkillick & @tdhock :smile:). A slightly longer-term aim is for rOpenSci statistical peer-review to lead to expedited review processes in JSS, for which we have been waiting for appropriate submissions. We'd be very happy for you to help trial that aspect, for which we all at both rOpenSci and JSS would really appreciate if you could first wait for the review here to be completed, and then submit to JSS for (hopefully) expedited review there. Let us know if you have any questions, and @rkillick & @tdhock feel free to comment further regarding JSS alignment.

markean commented 1 year ago

@mpadge Thank you for the details on timeline and JSS interaction! Are there some cases (packages) that took the route from rOpenSci to JSS? It would be very helpful for us to see some good examples.

tdhock commented 1 year ago

I do not know of any cases (packages) that took the route from rOpenSci to JSS, as that is very new. I believe your package sounds like a good fit though.

markean commented 1 year ago

@tdhock Thank you for the reply. @emilyriederer @mpadge Would it be okay to proceed to a submission then?

emilyriederer commented 1 year ago

Hi @markean ! Yes, indeed. I will close this presubmission inquiry and at your convenience please proceed to the full submission.

mpadge commented 1 year ago

@ropensci-review-bot check srr

ropensci-review-bot commented 1 year ago

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@ropensci-review-bot help

mpadge commented 1 year ago

@ropensci-review-bot check srr

ropensci-review-bot commented 1 year ago

'srr' standards compliance:

:heavy_check_mark: This package complies with > 50% of all standads and may be submitted.