[PRE REVIEW]: Statmanager-kr: A user-friendly statistical package for python in pandas

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @ckdckd145 (Changseok Lee)
Repository: https://github.com/ckdckd145/statmanager-kr
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 1.8.1.5
Editor: @teonbrooks
Reviewers: @catstats, @behinger
Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d88c1a10e30fbfc39104534970afcd23"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d88c1a10e30fbfc39104534970afcd23/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d88c1a10e30fbfc39104534970afcd23/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d88c1a10e30fbfc39104534970afcd23)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @ckdckd145. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@ckdckd145 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

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.05 s (534.0 files/s, 116076.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          20           1187            146           3272
Markdown                         3             75              0            234
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            469             33
TeX                              1              0              0             18
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            25           1262            615           3557
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1170

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507032000058064 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

Pingouin: statistics in Python
Submitting author: @raphaelvallat
Handling editor: @cMadan (Active)
Reviewers: @snastase
Similarity score: 0.8349

Autorank: A Python package for automated ranking of classifiers
Submitting author: @sherbold
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @JonathanReardon, @ejhigson
Similarity score: 0.8247

The psycho Package: an Efficient and Publishing-Oriented Workflow for Psychological Science
Submitting author: @DominiqueMakowski
Handling editor: @leeper (Retired)
Reviewers: @SachaEpskamp
Similarity score: 0.8226

pydynpd: A Python package for dynamic panel model
Submitting author: @dazhwu
Handling editor: @chartgerink (Active)
Reviewers: @Athene-ai, @mhu48
Similarity score: 0.8174

BATMAN: Statistical analysis for expensive computer codes made easy
Submitting author: @tupui
Handling editor: @katyhuff (Retired)
Reviewers: @mikeckennedy
Similarity score: 0.8170

⚠️ 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.

[arfon]

@ckdckd145 - 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!

[ckdckd145]

@arfon

Thanks for your kind explanation. I really sympathize with the busy you mentioned. I'll wait until a reviewer is assigned.

I have a few quick questions before the review begins. If you have a moment, I'd really appreciate it if you could answer them.

1. is it okay to make changes and updates in submitted software before the review starts?

2. is it okay to make changes to paper.bib as well as paper.md if there are any changes?

Thanks!

[ckdckd145]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

Pingouin: statistics in Python
Submitting author: @raphaelvallat
Handling editor: @cMadan (Active)
Reviewers: @snastase
Similarity score: 0.8353

Autorank: A Python package for automated ranking of classifiers
Submitting author: @sherbold
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @JonathanReardon, @ejhigson
Similarity score: 0.8243

The psycho Package: an Efficient and Publishing-Oriented Workflow for Psychological Science
Submitting author: @DominiqueMakowski
Handling editor: @leeper (Retired)
Reviewers: @SachaEpskamp
Similarity score: 0.8187

scikit-posthocs: Pairwise multiple comparison tests in Python
Submitting author: @maximtrp
Handling editor: @katyhuff (Retired)
Reviewers: @mnarayan, @djmitche
Similarity score: 0.8186

BATMAN: Statistical analysis for expensive computer codes made easy
Submitting author: @tupui
Handling editor: @katyhuff (Retired)
Reviewers: @mikeckennedy
Similarity score: 0.8179

⚠️ 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.

[arfon]

is it okay to make changes and updates in submitted software before the review starts?

Yes, this is an ideal time to be making changes.

is it okay to make changes to paper.bib as well as paper.md if there are any changes?

Yes.

[ckdckd145]

@arfon

Thanks !

Let me know if there's anything else I need to know.

Have a nice day!

[sappelhoff]

Hi @ckdckd145 👋 I briefly checked your submission (repository and paper) and just wanted to drop a hint (before potential review starts): Have you looked at https://pingouin-stats.org/build/html/index.html ? See also the first paper suggestion in this post: #6252 (comment)

Pingouin seems to be highly similar to your project in its goal to provide a "simple to use" interface for standard statistical tests. I recommend you have a look at that package and then in your paper describe in how far your project compares to pingouin and what it offers beyond that package -- or -- what it does differently (and why).

[ckdckd145]

Hi @sappelhoff . Thank you for taking the time and effort to check my project and provide feedback. Following your suggestion, I have looked at pingouin and recognize that there are some very similarities in purpose and approach. Pingouin is definitely a great statistical package, but I think statmanager-kr has some unique advantages that it can offer to other users.

Therefore, I will add a comparison paragraph to the paper as per your suggestion and also introduce some more "user-friendly" features of statmanager-kr. After I finish working on the paper, I will regenerate the PDF via editorial bot and inform you (if you don't mind)!

Once again, thank you for your feedback.
Have a great day!

[ckdckd145]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

[ckdckd145]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[ckdckd145]

(just forget to type "," in paper.bib)

[editorialbot]

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

[ckdckd145]

Hi @sappelhoff .

I've revised the paper based on your feedback and feel it's much more useful. Thanks again for your feedback.

I've also generated a new PDF via editorialbot, if you'd like to check it out.

Have a great day!
Thank you.

[sappelhoff]

Great, thanks. I have another comment that might help you:

Unlike pingouin, which is a software with an extensive test suite, your software only features very little (if any?) testing. Am I just not seeing these tests, or are they not implemented? I think you should invest time in building a thorough test suite for your package. This will not only increase the reliability of your software, but it's also a requirement for submissions to JOSS.

[ckdckd145]

@sappelhoff

Thanks again for your comment. I agree with you that a package should provide enough functionality for its purpose, and I also know that this is a requirement of JOSS. As you said, I am not sure if you have seen all the features of statmanager-kr, so I share the feature table below.

Key	Analysis
kstest	Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
shapiro	Shapiro-Wilks Test
z_normal	Z-skeweness & z-kurtosis test
levene	Levene Test
fmax	Fmax Test
chi2_contingency	Chi-squared Test
fisher	Fisher's Exact Test
pearsonr	Pearson's r
spearmanr	Spearman's rho
kendallt	Kendall's tau
ttest_ind	Independent Samples T-test
ttest_rel	Dependent Samples T-test
ttest_ind_trim	Yuen's Two Samples T-test
ttest_ind_welch	Welch's Two Samples T-test
mannwhitneyu	Mann-Whitney U Test
brunner	Brunner-Munzel Test
wilcoxon	Wilcoxon-Signed Rank Test
bootstrap	Boostrap Percentile Method
f_oneway	One-way ANOVA
f_oneway_rm	One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA
kruskal	Kruskal-Wallis Test
friedman	Friedman Test
f_nway	N-way ANOVA
f_nway_rm	N-way Mixed Repeated Measures ANOVA
linearr	Linear Regression
hier_linearr	Hierarchical Linear Regression
logisticr	Logistic Regression
oneway_ancova	One-way ANCOVA
rm_ancova	One-way Repeated Measures ANCOVA
cronbach	Calculating Cronbach's Alpha
bonf	Bonferroni Correction
tukey	Tukey HSD

If this is the case for you, then statmanager-en may not be sufficient for the needs of JOSS. However, I've been using statmanager-kr to create reports and other tasks in my current research, including a government-funded research project. Therefore, actually I think it has a value in social science research. But, if it is lacking in functionality, I will ask for a review in the future. So it would be great if you could look at it again.

Thanks again for your feedback!

[sappelhoff]

sorry for the misunderstanding @ckdckd145 --> I was not talking about "statistical tests" or the features of your software, but about "unit tests" that ensure that your software is working as expected. One of the ways pingouin does this, for example, is through comparisons with tests implemented in the R language. See also: https://docs.pytest.org/en/8.0.x/

[ckdckd145]

@sappelhoff

Ah, now that I understand your comment, I agree with you. To be honest, I hadn't thought of that.

Like Pingouin, I'll add the information to the documentation. It will take some time, but fortunately statmanager-kr is on the waiting list, and I'll get back to you for further review and advice once it's done.

Thank you very much.
Have a great day.

[arfon]

@editorialbot invite @teonbrooks as editor

👋 @teonbrooks – would you be willing to edit this submission for JOSS?

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[ckdckd145]

@sappelhoff

In response to your feedback, I've added comparison documentation where possible.

You can view them one by one by clicking on the analysis columns in the table at HERE. There are still some analyses that are incomplete, I'll continue to add them.

Thanks again !

[teonbrooks]

hi @arfon, I'm happy to take this on as editor.

[teonbrooks]

@editorialbot assign @teonbrooks as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @teonbrooks is now the editor

[teonbrooks]

👋 @prdm0 - Would you be willing to review this submission to 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

[teonbrooks]

👋 @catstats - Would you be willing to review this submission to 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

[catstats]

Thank you for considering me for the review of the submission to JOSS. I am happy to contribute to the review process. Please kindly let me know the next steps and any specific timelines or details I should be aware of. Best, castats

…

________________________________ From: Teon L Brooks ***@***.***> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 11:24 AM To: openjournals/joss-reviews ***@***.***> Cc: Jiang, Zhongli ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [openjournals/joss-reviews] [PRE REVIEW]: Statmanager-kr: A user-friendly statistical package for python in pandas (Issue #6252) You don't often get email from ***@***.*** Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> ---- External Email: Use caution with attachments, links, or sharing data ---- 👋 @catstats<https://github.com/catstats> - Would you be willing to review this submission to 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 — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#6252 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AD6YFI7LOV5ZFWBCK2ZGXE3YZBKBXAVCNFSM6AAAAABCDALGW6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAMBXGQ4DGNJWGA>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[arfon]

@teonbrooks – I'm removing the waitlisted label for you as the submission is... no longer waitlisted 😸

[teonbrooks]

thanks @catstats for agreeing to review! I will follow up shortly with more instructions :)

[teonbrooks]

@editorialbot add @catstats as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@catstats added to the reviewers list!

[teonbrooks]

👋 @behinger - Would you be willing to review this submission to 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

[teonbrooks]

👋 @OleBialas - Would you be willing to review this submission to 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

[behinger]

I was travelling, thanks for waiting for my response. I can review it, but earliest starting next week.

As a disclaimer: I havent used much of pythons stats ecosystem in the last years. But if I read the JOSS Critera correct, it is not a problem if other software already exists doing a similar job.

[teonbrooks]

hi @behinger, no worries at all. thanks for agreeing to review!

next week would be great. I will add you as a reviewer and kick off the process.

[teonbrooks]

thanks @catstats and @behinger both for agreeing to review!

[teonbrooks]

@editorialbot add @behinger as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@behinger added to the reviewers list!

[teonbrooks]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6642.