[PRE REVIEW]: Efficiently Collecting Relative Similarity Judgments from Humans

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @stsievert (Scott Sievert)
Repository: https://github.com/stsievert/salmon/
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @ajstewartlang
Reviewers: @hoechenberger, @stain
Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/00e003e1cd7c632f80d4097a66a58c69"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/00e003e1cd7c632f80d4097a66a58c69/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/00e003e1cd7c632f80d4097a66a58c69/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/00e003e1cd7c632f80d4097a66a58c69)

Author instructions

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

@stsievert if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

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=0.23 s (519.3 files/s, 79446.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          50           1855           2614           6496
HTML                             5             93             12           1246
reStructuredText                15            547            600            811
CSS                              2            178              0            783
YAML                            26             35             49            554
Jupyter Notebook                 3              0           1391            245
TeX                              1             20              0            181
Markdown                         6             58              0            165
Bourne Shell                     3             20             48             73
make                             2             14             10             39
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
Dockerfile                       2              6              2             22
SVG                              3              0              0              3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           119           2834           4727          10644
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 887

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1137/1.9781611974010.31 is OK
- 10.1109/MLSP.2012.6349720 is OK
- 10.1007/s42761-020-00024-8 is OK
- 10.1109/BTAS.2016.7791205 is OK
- 10.1109/IJCNN.2019.8852059 is OK
- 10.1111/cogs.12744 is OK
- 10.25080/shinma-7f4c6e7-010 is OK
- 10.1109/TKDE.2019.2956700 is OK
- 10.1109/Allerton.2011.6120287 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[danielskatz]

👋 @ajstewartlang - are you able to edit this submission?

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot invite @ajstewartlang as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[ajstewartlang]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @ajstewartlang is now the editor

[stsievert]

Thanks acting as the editor @ajstewartlang! I think relevant reviewers should have some experience with online research tools and/or deploying their software. I think these people have those qualifications: felixhenninger Andytwoods peircej and expectopatronum. Every one of those reviewers are between 300 and 500 from the top of the list.

[ajstewartlang]

@editorialbot add @hoechenberger as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@hoechenberger added to the reviewers list!

[stsievert]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[ajstewartlang]

@editorialbot add @stain as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@stain added to the reviewers list!

[ajstewartlang]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #4517.