Peer Review by Ian Quan

[IanQuan]

This peer review is base on the submission until 02:56, January 24, 2024, anything changed later is not evaluated.

1. R is appropriately cited - 1 (Yes)
2. LLM usage is documented - 1 (Yes)
3. Title - 1 (Yes)
4. Author, date, and repo - 0 (not done): repository is not included in the paper
5. Abstract - 4 (exceptional): The abstract is concise and sufficiently summarizes the content of this article.
6. Introduction - 2 (great): Introduction is too short and does not explain the reason of conducting this analysis, also the referencing is poorly written.
7. Data - 2 (poor): Reference to some R packages are broken, Does not explain what kind of data analysis is conducted and does not explain the results of the plots.
8. Measurement - 1 (Done)
9. Cross-references - 2 (yes)
10. Prose - 2 (yes)
11. Graphs/tables/etc - 3 (great): Multiple pictures and tables but lack of detail explanation.
12. Reference list - 1 (poor): Some reference link are broken. Style of referencing is poorly written.
13. Commits - 2 (excellent)
14. Sketches - 0(None)
15. Simulation - 1(done): Seed number is not used in simulation
16. Test - 4(done)
17. Reproducibility - 2(fair): lack of detail explanation on how you process the data. Seed number is not used in simulation
18. Code style - 1(fair)

Comments: unrelated files should be deleted to avoid confusion and maintain a clean sturcure.

[taliafabs]

thank you for the feedback! I appreciate it.