[REVIEW]: Visualizations with statistical details: The 'ggstatsplot' approach

[whedon]

Submitting author: @IndrajeetPatil (Indrajeet Patil)
Repository: https://github.com/IndrajeetPatil/ggstatsplot
Version: 0.7.2
Editor: @csoneson
Reviewer: @njtierney, @kevinrue
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.4681705

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/254890248268a43a0365abe1a607939c"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/254890248268a43a0365abe1a607939c/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/254890248268a43a0365abe1a607939c/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/254890248268a43a0365abe1a607939c)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@njtierney & @kevinrue, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @csoneson know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Review checklist for @njtierney

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@IndrajeetPatil) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

• Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

Review checklist for @kevinrue

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@IndrajeetPatil) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

• Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @njtierney, @kevinrue it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper 🎉.

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

⭐ Important ⭐

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

2. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf

[csoneson]

👋🏼 @IndrajeetPatil, @njtierney, @kevinrue - this is the review thread for the submission. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

Both reviewers have checklists at the top of this thread. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues directly in the software repository. If you do so, please mention this thread so that a link is created (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions in this thread. It is often easier to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

Please feel free to ping me (@csoneson) if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks!

[whedon]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[whedon]

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=4.28 s (58.9 files/s, 24973.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML                            68           4624            874          33370
JavaScript                      28           5168           5438          18920
SVG                             26              0              1           7719
R                               60           1030           2680           5930
Markdown                        23           1155              0           5720
Rmd                             21           2070           4358           5056
XML                              2              0              2            606
JSON                             2              1              0            580
CSS                              7            108             58            474
YAML                            12             82             19            444
TeX                              3             29              0            316
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           252          14267          13430          79135
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Statistical information for the repository '7eff902a638cc56c89a03c4a' was
gathered on 2021/04/12.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Indrajeet Patil                 50         54359          15224           99.42
IndrajeetPatil                   5           305             99            0.58

Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:

Author                     Rows      Stability          Age       % in comments
Indrajeet Patil           39341           72.4          9.4               18.54

[IndrajeetPatil]

Thanks, @csoneson, will ping you in case of any questions. None for now.

Looking forward to the comments from the reviewers!

[kevinrue]

@csoneson All good from my point of view!

[IndrajeetPatil]

@kevinrue Thanks a ton for your helpful feedback! 🙌

[IndrajeetPatil]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[csoneson]

Great - I will hand this over now to the associate editor-in-chief on rotation for the last steps!

[csoneson]

@whedon accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.3758/s13428-015-0664-2 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01686 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03236 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02815 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02445 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01541 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03139 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01412 is OK
- 10.3758/s13423-020-01798-5 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02306 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1016/0003-2697(86)90183-1 may be a valid DOI for title: The Elements of Graphing Data

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

👋 @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#2337

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#2337, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

[csoneson]

(and I'll just note again that the missing DOI above is a false hit - it's pointing to a review of the book)

[IndrajeetPatil]

Yaay!!

Thank you so much @csoneson, @kevinrue, and @njtierney for all your valuable feedback on the manuscript and the software! ❤️

[arfon]

@whedon accept deposit=true

[whedon]

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

[whedon]

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

[whedon]

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.03167 joss-papers#2338
1. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03167
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

[arfon]

@njtierney, @kevinrue – many thanks for your reviews here and to @csoneson for editing this submission! JOSS relies upon the volunteer efforts of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you ✨

@IndrajeetPatil – your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS ⚡🚀💥

[whedon]

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03167/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03167)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03167">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03167/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03167/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03167

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

• Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss