[REVIEW]: metrica: an R package to evaluate prediction performance of regression and classification point-forecast models #4655

editorialbot · 2022-08-05T19:06:34Z

Submitting author: @adriancorrendo (Adrian Correndo)
Repository: https://github.com/adriancorrendo/metrica/
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): JOSS
Version: v2.0.1.999
Editor: @osorensen
Reviewers: @wiljnich, @simonpcouch
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7291776

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c3113e0e3fe8c8f9f49d43fde5f4125f"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c3113e0e3fe8c8f9f49d43fde5f4125f/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c3113e0e3fe8c8f9f49d43fde5f4125f/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c3113e0e3fe8c8f9f49d43fde5f4125f)

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

@neerajdhanraj & @kauedesousa, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

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

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @wiljnich

📝 Checklist for @simonpcouch

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

editorialbot · 2022-08-05T19:06:35Z

Hello humans, 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

editorialbot · 2022-08-05T19:06:37Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.10 s (1042.4 files/s, 113261.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R                               88            803           3699           3479
Markdown                         5            267              0           1040
TeX                              1             51              0            465
Rmd                              6            401            759            379
YAML                             6             33             17            124
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           106           1555           4475           5487
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot · 2022-08-05T19:06:39Z

Wordcount for paper.md is 1614

editorialbot · 2022-08-05T19:07:47Z

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

editorialbot · 2022-08-05T19:07:59Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103194 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01686 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.839854 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03139 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1740-9713.2018.01169.x is OK
- 10.3325/cmj.2020.61.66 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-0-12-811756-9.00009-5 is OK
- 10.1016/j.agsy.2005.11.004 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.02.002 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.07.009 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0269047 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4618017 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01903 is OK
- 10.2134/agronj2000.922345x is OK
- 10.1017/S1464793106007007 is OK
- 10.1038/srep19401 is OK
- 10.1126/science.1205438 is OK
- 10.1214/009053607000000505 is OK
- 10.1016/0304-3800(93)E0074-D is OK
- 10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6 is OK
- 10.1016/j.agsy.2014.01.008 is OK
- 10.1080/02723646.1981.10642213 is OK
- 10.1029/JC090iC05p08995 is OK
- 10.1002/joc.2419 is OK
- 10.1029/1998WR900018 is OK
- 10.5194/adgeo-5-89-2005 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.01.011 is OK
- 10.2307/2088760 is OK
- 10.2307/2089382 is OK
- 10.1016/j.patrec.2008.08.010 is OK
- 10.1016/j.engappai.2007.01.001 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- doi:10.14358/PERS.72.7.823 is INVALID (failed connection)

adriancorrendo · 2022-08-05T20:48:37Z

Thank you!
I just updated the branch containing the paper https://github.com/adriancorrendo/metrica/tree/JOSS ,
fixing the INVALID DOI within the "paper.bib" under the following commit:
adriancorrendo/metrica@1a71b1c

Best regards,

ADRIAN

osorensen · 2022-08-06T06:59:49Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2022-08-06T07:01:08Z

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

osorensen · 2022-08-23T16:50:57Z

👋 @neerajdhanraj, @kauedesousa, could you please update us on how it's going with your reviews? You're welcome to reach out to me if you have any questions.

osorensen · 2022-09-09T05:36:05Z

👋 @neerajdhanraj, @kauedesousa, could you please update us on how it's going with your reviews? You're welcome to reach out to me if you have any questions.

osorensen · 2022-09-17T05:51:16Z

👋 @neerajdhanraj, @kauedesousa, could you please update us on how it's going with your reviews?

kauedesousa · 2022-09-17T07:25:16Z

Hi @osorensen I am so sorry for the long silence. I was in the middle of several duty travels. I will deliver my report in 1 week. Is that ok? Best regards

osorensen · 2022-09-17T08:25:56Z

Thanks @kauedesousa, that sounds great 👍

osorensen · 2022-09-26T13:30:32Z

👋 @neerajdhanraj, @kauedesousa, could you please update us on how it's going with your reviews?

osorensen · 2022-10-04T12:55:51Z

@adriancorrendo, for your information: since I'm not able to get in touch with the reviewers, I'll try to find new reviewers for this submission. Sorry for the delay.

osorensen · 2022-10-04T12:58:14Z

👋 @wiljnich @simonpcouch @Emma-k-ward, would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

wiljnich · 2022-10-04T13:27:54Z

@osorensen yes, I am able and willing to review this submission.

adriancorrendo · 2022-10-04T13:30:12Z

@adriancorrendo, for your information: since I'm not able to get in touch with the reviewers, I'll try to find new reviewers for this submission. Sorry for the delay.

Thank you very much, Dr. Sorensen,
No worries at all. Finding good and pragmatic reviewers it's a big deal everywhere.
I sincerely appreciate your proactiveness to find a solution.

Best regards,

ADRIAN

osorensen · 2022-10-04T13:57:23Z

@editorialbot add @wiljnich as reviewer

editorialbot · 2022-10-04T13:57:24Z

@wiljnich added to the reviewers list!

osorensen · 2022-10-04T13:58:06Z

Perfect @wiljnich! You can get started by issuing the command @editorialbot generate my checklist.

wiljnich · 2022-10-04T14:01:22Z

Review checklist for @wiljnich

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 https://github.com/adriancorrendo/metrica/?
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 (@adriancorrendo) 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
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
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?

simonpcouch · 2022-10-04T14:02:48Z

@osorensen I'd be happy to review this submission!👍

editorialbot · 2022-11-04T20:22:06Z

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

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#3682, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

osorensen · 2022-11-05T07:59:18Z

FYI @openjournals/dsais-eics, we lost contact with the two originally assigned reviewers, and hence got two new ones.

osorensen · 2022-11-05T07:59:47Z

@editorialbot help

editorialbot · 2022-11-05T07:59:50Z

Hello @osorensen, here are the things you can ask me to do:


# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Add to this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot add @username as reviewer

# Remove from this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot remove @username from reviewers

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Assign a user as the editor of this submission
@editorialbot assign @username as editor

# Remove the editor assigned to this submission
@editorialbot remove editor

# Remind an author, a reviewer or the editor to return to a review after a 
# certain period of time (supported units days and weeks)
@editorialbot remind @reviewer in 2 weeks

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for version
@editorialbot set v1.0.0 as version

# Set a value for archive
@editorialbot set 10.21105/zenodo.12345 as archive

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Set a value for repository
@editorialbot set https://github.com/organization/repo as repository

# Mention the EiCs for the correct track
@editorialbot ping track-eic

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Recommends the submission for acceptance
@editorialbot recommend-accept

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Flag submission with questionable scope
@editorialbot query scope

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

# Open the review issue
@editorialbot start review

osorensen · 2022-11-05T08:00:15Z

@editorialbot remove @neerajdhanraj from reviewers

editorialbot · 2022-11-05T08:00:17Z

@neerajdhanraj removed from the reviewers list!

osorensen · 2022-11-05T08:00:29Z

@editorialbot remove @kauedesousa from reviewers

editorialbot · 2022-11-05T08:00:31Z

@kauedesousa removed from the reviewers list!

osorensen · 2022-11-05T08:01:03Z

I forgot to remove the two reviewers before recommending accept, hence recompiling the paper now, with their names removed.

osorensen · 2022-11-05T08:01:08Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2022-11-05T08:02:38Z

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

adriancorrendo · 2022-11-14T23:56:29Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

Good evening, Dr. @osorensen

May I ask if any action is required from my side? I see the paper has been stuck for the last 10 days after the decision

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

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#3682, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

Thank you for your time!

Best regards,

ADRIAN

osorensen · 2022-11-15T06:33:51Z

@adriancorrendo we're waiting for the editor in chief @openjournals/dsais-eics to read through and make the final decision.

arfon · 2022-11-25T07:32:07Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2022-11-25T07:32:08Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2022-11-25T07:34:07Z

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

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#3753, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2022-11-25T07:35:42Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103194 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01686 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.839854 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03139 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1740-9713.2018.01169.x is OK
- 10.3325/cmj.2020.61.66 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-0-12-811756-9.00009-5 is OK
- 10.1016/j.agsy.2005.11.004 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.02.002 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.07.009 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0269047 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4618017 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01903 is OK
- 10.2134/agronj2000.922345x is OK
- 10.1017/S1464793106007007 is OK
- 10.14358/PERS.72.7.823 is OK
- 10.1038/srep19401 is OK
- 10.1126/science.1205438 is OK
- 10.1214/009053607000000505 is OK
- 10.1016/0304-3800(93)E0074-D is OK
- 10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6 is OK
- 10.1016/j.agsy.2014.01.008 is OK
- 10.1080/02723646.1981.10642213 is OK
- 10.1029/JC090iC05p08995 is OK
- 10.1002/joc.2419 is OK
- 10.1029/1998WR900018 is OK
- 10.5194/adgeo-5-89-2005 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.01.011 is OK
- 10.2307/2088760 is OK
- 10.2307/2089382 is OK
- 10.1016/j.patrec.2008.08.010 is OK
- 10.1016/j.engappai.2007.01.001 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

arfon · 2022-11-25T07:37:06Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2022-11-25T07:37:07Z

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

editorialbot · 2022-11-25T07:39:38Z

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

editorialbot · 2022-11-25T07:39:39Z

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

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.04655 joss-papers#3754
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04655
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

arfon · 2022-11-25T07:47:55Z

Apologies it took a while to get this published folks!

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

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

editorialbot · 2022-11-25T07:47:57Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.04655/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04655)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04655">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04655/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04655/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04655

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The 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

editorialbot added R review TeX labels Aug 5, 2022

editorialbot assigned osorensen Aug 5, 2022

editorialbot mentioned this issue Aug 5, 2022

[PRE REVIEW]: metrica: an R package to evaluate prediction performance of regression and classification point-forecast models #4631

Closed

editorialbot added the Track: 5 (DSAIS) Data Science, Artificial Intelligence, and Machine Learning label Aug 12, 2022

editorialbot assigned wiljnich Oct 4, 2022

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Nov 4, 2022

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Nov 25, 2022

arfon closed this as completed Nov 25, 2022

editorialbot mentioned this issue Feb 17, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: pivmet: an R package proposing pivotal methods for consensus clustering and mixture modelling #6363

Closed

editorialbot mentioned this issue Sep 22, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: ahead: Univariate and multivariate time series forecasting with uncertainty quantification (including simulation approaches)' #6477

Closed

editorialbot mentioned this issue Dec 17, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: calzone: A Python package for measuring calibration of probabilistic models for classification #7598

Open

[REVIEW]: metrica: an R package to evaluate prediction performance of regression and classification point-forecast models #4655

[REVIEW]: metrica: an R package to evaluate prediction performance of regression and classification point-forecast models #4655

Comments

editorialbot commented Aug 5, 2022 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Aug 5, 2022

editorialbot commented Aug 5, 2022

editorialbot commented Aug 5, 2022

editorialbot commented Aug 5, 2022

editorialbot commented Aug 5, 2022

adriancorrendo commented Aug 5, 2022

osorensen commented Aug 6, 2022

editorialbot commented Aug 6, 2022

osorensen commented Aug 23, 2022

osorensen commented Sep 9, 2022

osorensen commented Sep 17, 2022

kauedesousa commented Sep 17, 2022

osorensen commented Sep 17, 2022

osorensen commented Sep 26, 2022

osorensen commented Oct 4, 2022

osorensen commented Oct 4, 2022

wiljnich commented Oct 4, 2022

adriancorrendo commented Oct 4, 2022

osorensen commented Oct 4, 2022

editorialbot commented Oct 4, 2022

osorensen commented Oct 4, 2022

wiljnich commented Oct 4, 2022 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @wiljnich

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

simonpcouch commented Oct 4, 2022

editorialbot commented Nov 4, 2022

osorensen commented Nov 5, 2022

osorensen commented Nov 5, 2022

editorialbot commented Nov 5, 2022

osorensen commented Nov 5, 2022

editorialbot commented Nov 5, 2022

osorensen commented Nov 5, 2022

editorialbot commented Nov 5, 2022

osorensen commented Nov 5, 2022

osorensen commented Nov 5, 2022

editorialbot commented Nov 5, 2022

adriancorrendo commented Nov 14, 2022

osorensen commented Nov 15, 2022 • edited Loading

arfon commented Nov 25, 2022

editorialbot commented Nov 25, 2022

editorialbot commented Nov 25, 2022

editorialbot commented Nov 25, 2022

arfon commented Nov 25, 2022

editorialbot commented Nov 25, 2022

editorialbot commented Nov 25, 2022

editorialbot commented Nov 25, 2022

arfon commented Nov 25, 2022

editorialbot commented Nov 25, 2022

editorialbot commented Aug 5, 2022 •

edited

Loading

wiljnich commented Oct 4, 2022 •

edited

Loading

osorensen commented Nov 15, 2022 •

edited

Loading