[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: v1.8.1.14
Editor: @teonbrooks
Reviewers: @catstats, @behinger
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.13901226

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)

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

@catstats & @behinger, 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 @teonbrooks 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 @catstats

📝 Checklist for @behinger

[editorialbot]

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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.04 s (858.2 files/s, 163685.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          20           1265            373           3356
Markdown                         3            147              0            372
CSV                              8              0              0            224
TeX                              1              0              0             50
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            477             30
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            33           1412            850           4032
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   130	ckdckd145
    11	DESKTOP-CSHOME
     1	Changseok Lee

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1080/0307507032000058064 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-011 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01026 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Statistics for the Social Sciences: Moving Toward ...

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1796

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

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

[catstats]

Review checklist for @catstats

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/ckdckd145/statmanager-kr?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@ckdckd145) 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?

[behinger]

Review checklist for @behinger

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/ckdckd145/statmanager-kr?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@ckdckd145) 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?

[catstats]

@ckdckd145/statmanager-kr#13

[ckdckd145]

@catstats @behinger

Hi ! Thanks for reviewing my article and source code of the statmanager-kr.
Also thank you very much for overall positive feedbacks (I hope I read correctly)

I briefly checked all comments and now planning to revise all related parts soon.
I will change the codes, and whenever I commit, I'll mention it in the related issue in my repository.
But, I think this to take a while, so I'd appreciate your patience. (Thanks!)

To be honest, I'm not a developer by trade, and I'm new to the Joss review process, so I'm not sure if this is the right way to do it. Please let me know if this is something I should do differently.
Thank you so much. :)

ref @teonbrooks

[crvernon]

👋 @teonbrooks - please check in on this one weekly to make sure things are progressing. Thanks!

[teonbrooks]

@crvernon thanks for the heads up on that.

thanks @catstats and @behinger for your diligent work in reviewing the software and its paper! I really appreciate your hard work and effort.

it looks like there are some outstanding requests @behinger raised in ckdckd145/statmanager-kr#12 that would need to be resolved. I believe that @ckdckd145 is working to resolve these. I think once these remaining issues are resolved, we can do a final pass and make the decision

[ckdckd145]

@teonbrooks

Hi!
Nowadays I'm working to resolve the issues from @behinger. I apologize for the delay as I am working on my job.
I will keep you informed of my work as much as possible.

Thanks you as always!

[behinger]

With ckdckd145/statmanager-kr#12 I think my concerns were nicely addressed

[ckdckd145]

@behinger

Thanks for reviewing my software!

ref @teonbrooks

[ckdckd145]

@teonbrooks

Hi! ✋🏼

I apologize for the long delay, but it looks like the review has been completed, can you please tell me what to do now, I'm new to the JOSS process so I'm not sure.

Thank you very much 😄

[teonbrooks]

@ckdckd145, no worries, it has been great watching how both the package and paper have improved over the review cycle.

@catstats, anything you would like to add or are you happy where things have landed?

@behinger, I take it that you are satisfied with the paper and package.

[catstats]

@teonbrooks
Thank you for asking. This package looks good to me.

[ckdckd145]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[ckdckd145]

@teonbrooks

Hi!
I made little revisions to the article to remove typos and misrepresentations. 😄

[crvernon]

@teonbrooks this one looks like it is almost ready for you to recommend acceptance on. Could you make your editing pass and then recommend acceptance if you believe it is ready?

[editorialbot]

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

[crvernon]

👋 @ckdckd145 - I just need you to address the following before I move forward with accepting this for publication:

In your archive:

• The title and authors (including the author order) in your Zenodo archive should match those represented in your paper exactly. Please edit the Zenodo archive's metadata to match these fields to what is in your paper.
• Also, the license specified in your Zenodo archive should match what is used in your code repository.

In your paper:

• LINE 12: "Scipy" should be "SciPy"
• LINE 12: "Statsmodels" should be "statsmodels"; I believe the capitalized the "S" in the title of the journal article because it was the start of a sentence; however, the package has it all lower case.
• LINE 23: "Scipy" should be "SciPy"
• LINE 24: "Statsmodels" should be "statsmodels"
• LINES 23 and 24: The citations for SciPy and statsmodels are switched up.
• LINE 29: Use ")" instead of "." after your numbered list. For example, "...1) read data..."
• LINE 30: No need for the dot in front of the method name or the parenthesis after; code formatting is ok. So it should read: "3) execute the progress method..."
• LINE 31: No need for the dot in front of the method names for Pandas functions or the parenthesis after; code formatting is ok. Also, I believe these are functions and not methods as a part of a class.
• LINE 46: I would change "datasets" here to "data types" because you are directly reference the Pandas DataFrame data type here.
• LINE 47-49: Missing content after "post-hoc". Are you referring to post hoc processing, e.g., post processing? These few sentences read a bit off. How about the following as a recommended fix at the start of the paragraph:

Statmanager-kr also is able to perform additional post processing directly by setting posthoc to True in the progress method. Results can then be visualized by calling the figure method from the output variable or instance of progress. Although...

• Throughout, no need to place the dot before method names and the parenthesis after when you are discussing them as a method or function in the sentence and using code formatting on their names. I'll not mention these from now on, so please just check the document for these.
• LINE 72: the "p" in "python" should be capitalized. This can be done in the bib file by using curly brackets around the characters that you wish to maintain formatting of.
• LINE 78: the "p" in "python" should be capitalized.

Let me know when you have finished these and I'll take another look. Thanks!

[ckdckd145]

@crvernon

Hi! ✋🏼 I appreciate your feedback.
I just make revisions in my articles.
Lines related to the feedback about "post-hoc" also revised to make it clear. Actually it was about post-hoc analysis in scientific statistics. Let me give you the link about post-hoc analysis.

And... The DOI changed when I issued a new release. 😢
(10.5281/zenodo.13901218)
I think this related to my unfamiliarity with zenodo. Sorry about that 😓

Thank you!

ref @teonbrooks

[crvernon]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[crvernon]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[crvernon]

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.13901218 as archive

[editorialbot]

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.13901218

[crvernon]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[crvernon]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[crvernon]

👋 @ckdckd145 - there was still a capitalization issue in your references, so I set up a PR from a fork into your paper branch that should take care of this. Please see and review. Let me know when this makes it into your branch and I'll check the status again. Thanks!

[ckdckd145]

@crvernon

Sorry for the disturbance 😓 .
I merged your fork, and re-release.
DOI is also changed (sorry 😢 ) -> 10.5281/zenodo.13901226

Thanks!

[crvernon]

@editorialbot generate pdf

No problem at all @ckdckd145. That's what this process is all about. We will work together to get it done the best we can with the goal of getting your work published so others can benefit from it. Thanks!

[editorialbot]

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

[crvernon]

@editorialbot accept

[editorialbot]

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

[crvernon]

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.13901226 as archive

[editorialbot]

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.13901226

[editorialbot]

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Lee
  given-names: Changseok
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8825-5571"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13901218
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Lee
    given-names: Changseok
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8825-5571"
  date-published: 2024-10-10
  doi: 10.21105/joss.06642
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 102
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 6642
  title: "Statmanager-kr: A User-friendly Statistical Package for Python
    in Pandas"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06642"
  volume: 9
title: "Statmanager-kr: A User-friendly Statistical Package for Python
  in Pandas"

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

[editorialbot]

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

[editorialbot]

🚨🚨🚨 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.06642 joss-papers#5987
1. Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06642
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...

[crvernon]

🥳 Congratulations on your new publication @ckdckd145! Many thanks to @teonbrooks for editing and @catstats and @behinger for your time, hard work, and expertise!! JOSS wouldn't be able to function nor succeed without your efforts.

Please consider becoming a reviewer for JOSS if you are not already: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join

[editorialbot]

🎉🎉🎉 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.06642/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06642)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06642">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06642/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06642/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06642

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://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss