joss-reviews
joss-reviews copied to clipboard
openjournals
[PRE REVIEW]: cuallee: A python package for data quality checks across multiple DataFrame APIs
Submitting author: @canimus (Herminio Vazquez) Repository: https://github.com/canimus/cuallee Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main Version: v0.8.8 Editor: Pending Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Arfon Smith
Status
Status badge code:
HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/db01d4f5a02a319fe2b4c49f68e3f859"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/db01d4f5a02a319fe2b4c49f68e3f859/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/db01d4f5a02a319fe2b4c49f68e3f859)
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @canimus. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
@canimus 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
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1145/3603707 is OK
- 10.1145/3603706 is OK
- 10.1145/3580305.3599776 is OK
- 10.14778/3229863.3229867 is OK
- 10.1145/3529190.3529222 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Gaps in Globular Cluster Streams: Pal 5 and the Ga...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Fidgit: An ungodly union of GitHub and Figshare
INVALID DOIs
- None
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.15 s (1912.7 files/s, 151496.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 248 2669 796 11857
Markdown 16 1523 0 4180
XML 1 0 0 635
SVG 5 5 2 213
TeX 1 11 0 126
YAML 3 6 14 122
TOML 1 5 1 64
make 1 11 0 42
Dockerfile 2 11 2 33
INI 1 0 0 5
Bourne Shell 3 0 0 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 282 4241 815 17280
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
344 Herminio Vazquez
66 Virginie Grosboillot
24 dependabot[bot]
2 Demetrius Albuquerque
1 Corey Runkel
1 Ryan Julyan
1 dCodeYL
Paper file info:
📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1241
✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@canimus - 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!
@arfon I found that Evaristo Rojas-Mayoral appears as a reviewer that could look into our paper.
- GitHub: devarops
- ORCID: 0000-0001-6812-9562
@editorialbot invite @jbytecode as editor
:wave: @jbytecode – would you be willing to edit this submission for JOSS?
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1145/3603707 is OK
- 10.1145/3603706 is OK
- 10.1145/3580305.3599776 is OK
- 10.14778/3229863.3229867 is OK
- 10.1145/3529190.3529222 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:
@canimus - 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.
Please do not use the @ character just because we don't want to bother them with notifications.
👋👋👋 Dear @devarops, @htwangtw 👋👋👋
Would you be willing to assist in reviewing this submission for JOSS (Journal of Open Source Software)?
JOSS publishes articles about open source research software. The submission I'd like you to review is titled:
cuallee: A python package for data quality checks across multiple DataFrame APIs
You can find more information at the top of this Github issue (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6459).
The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. If you have any questions please let me know.
This is the pre-review issue. After setting at least 2 reviewers we will start the review process in a separate thread. In that thread, there will be 23 check items for each single reviewer.
Thank you in advance!
@editorialbot add @devarops as reviewer
@devarops - Thank you for accepting our invitation. After we assign the second reviewer, the review will start in a separate thread. I will introduce the steps there.
@jbytecode: I don't feel I am the most suitable reviewer as I am only familiar with one data frame api amongst the covered options. I hope you can find someone else!
👋👋👋 Dear @FlorianK13, @SarthakJariwala 👋👋👋
Would you be willing to assist in reviewing this submission for JOSS (Journal of Open Source Software)?
JOSS publishes articles about open source research software. The submission I'd like you to review is titled:
cuallee: A python package for data quality checks across multiple DataFrame APIs
You can find more information at the top of this Github issue (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6459).
The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. If you have any questions please let me know.
This is the pre-review issue. After setting at least 2 reviewers we will start the review process in a separate thread. In that thread, there will be 23 check items for each single reviewer.
Thank you in advance!
