joss-reviews
joss-reviews copied to clipboard
openjournals
[PRE REVIEW]: validateHOT
Submitting author: @JoshSchramm94 (Joshua Benjamin Schramm) Repository: https://github.com/JoshSchramm94/validateHOT Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.0.0 Editor: @skanwal Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Arfon Smith
Status
Status badge code:
HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/85d008d0fef7c4079f41ff7d1102c805"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/85d008d0fef7c4079f41ff7d1102c805/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/85d008d0fef7c4079f41ff7d1102c805)
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @JoshSchramm94. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
@JoshSchramm94 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
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
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.06 s (1009.2 files/s, 265296.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R 52 1255 2646 6279
XML 1 0 18 2377
Markdown 3 271 0 1315
Rmd 3 381 824 536
TeX 1 34 0 289
YAML 2 10 6 57
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 62 1951 3494 10853
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1177/002224299005400402 is OK
- 10.1177/0022243718817004 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-540-87753-0 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v105.i10 is OK
- 10.1509/jmkr.42.1.67.56890 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.08.007 is OK
- 10.1007/s11002-014-9326-x is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01686 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4842-9268-6 is OK
- 10.1086/208920 is OK
- 10.1287/mksc.15.2.173 is OK
- 10.1177/002224379503200402 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.08.007 is OK
- 10.1111/jpim.12077 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jocm.2022.100394 is OK
- 10.1509/jmkr.48.1.140 is OK
- 10.1007/s11747-023-00997-5 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Five most similar historical JOSS papers:
robustHD: An R package for robust regression with high-dimensional data
Submitting author: @aalfons
Handling editor: @mikldk (Retired)
Reviewers: @valentint, @msalibian
Similarity score: 0.8097
hopit: An R Package for Analysis of Reporting Behavior Using Generalized Ordered Probit Models
Submitting author: @MaciejDanko
Handling editor: @alexhanna (Retired)
Reviewers: @soodoku, @mkearney
Similarity score: 0.8068
gofcat: An R package for goodness-of-fit of categorical response models
Submitting author: @ejikeugba
Handling editor: @sbenthall (Active)
Reviewers: @NRaillard, @PhilipPallmann
Similarity score: 0.8062
modeLLtest: An R Package for Unbiased Model Comparison using Cross Validation
Submitting author: @ShanaScogin
Handling editor: @usethedata (Retired)
Reviewers: @andrewheiss, @usethedata
Similarity score: 0.8030
mcboost: Multi-Calibration Boosting for R
Submitting author: @pfistfl
Handling editor: @osorensen (Active)
Reviewers: @mwt, @OwenWard
Similarity score: 0.7985
⚠️ 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.
@JoshSchramm94 - thanks for your submission to JOSS. We're currently managing a large backlog of submissions and the editor most appropriate for your area is already rather busy.
For now, we will need to waitlist this paper and process it as the queue reduces. Thanks for your patience!
@JoshSchramm94 – one minor issue while we wait here, this paper is rather longer than we usually accept in JOSS. Ideally, we're looking for papers ~1000 words in length. I'm not sure if there are obvious ways in which you might be able to shorten this (e.g., move some of the examples into docs) but I just wanted to mention this before we get too far into the review process.
@editorialbot invite @skanwal as editor
:wave: @skanwal – would you be able to take on this submission for us?
@arfon - thanks for getting back to me. I have updated the paper accordingly and the word count is now below 1000.
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@editorialbot invite @RMeli as editor
@RMeli – would you be willing to edit this submission for JOSS?
@JoshSchramm94 - would you like to suggest reviewers for your submission? 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.
@@katekanecm - will you be happy to review this submission? PDF can be found in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6268#issuecomment-1976803599.
@skanwal, first of all thank you for reviewing the paper. I have looked through the list and suggest the following reviewers based on their expertise in bayesian methods and choice modelling. Hope that this procedure was ok.
- njtierney
- mariobecerra
- jamesuanhoro
Thanks a lot again.
@njtierney - will you be happy to review this submission? PDF can be found in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6268#issuecomment-1976803599.
@mariobecerra - will you be happy to review this submission? PDF can be found in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6268#issuecomment-1976803599.
@jamesuanhoro - will you be happy to review this submission? PDF can be found in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6268#issuecomment-1976803599.
Hi @njtierney, @@mariobecerra, @jamesuanhoro - could you let us know if you have bandwidth to review this article?
Hi @njtierney, @@mariobecerra, @jamesuanhoro - could you let us know if you have bandwidth to review this article?
I won't be able to review until May. Happy to begin my review then if the reviewer list is not complete by then.
@jamesuanhoro - thank you. I'll ping you again if we haven't found a reviewer by May.
Hi @jamesuanhoro - It'd be appreciated if you can review this submission in May as we haven't had a response from other reviewers yet?
I'll open up a review issue if you're happy with that?