[PRE REVIEW]: cookiecutter-cmdstanpy-analysis: an interactive template for statisical analysis projects

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @teddygroves (Teddy Groves)
Repository: https://github.com/teddygroves/cookiecutter-cmdstanpy-analysis/
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 1.0.1
Editor: Pending
Reviewers: Pending
Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7838538ee7d2049c47dd396e345a844d"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7838538ee7d2049c47dd396e345a844d/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7838538ee7d2049c47dd396e345a844d/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7838538ee7d2049c47dd396e345a844d)

Author instructions

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

@teddygroves 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=0.07 s (712.5 files/s, 131030.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          12            130            119            571
Markdown                        13            112              0            376
reStructuredText                 8            135            262            149
TeX                              2             14              0            148
TOML                             4             13              1             75
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0           6586             73
make                             3             22             14             71
YAML                             4             16             11             67
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
JSON                             1              0              0             11
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            49            450           6994           1567
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1178

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.18637/jss.v076.i01 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01143 is OK
- 10.1038/nprot.2014.025 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1007/978-1-4842-2677-3_5 may be a valid DOI for title: Pytest

INVALID DOIs

- None

[danielskatz]

👋 @teddygroves - thanks for your submission. Due to the relatively small amount of code, the editors will now discuss if it meets the substantial scholarly effort criterion for review by JOSS. I'm also unsure if it is research software as defined by JOSS. You should hear back in a week or so.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot query scope

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[teddygroves]

👋 @teddygroves - thanks for your submission. Due to the relatively small amount of code, the editors will now discuss if it meets the substantial scholarly effort criterion for review by JOSS. I'm also unsure if it is research software as defined by JOSS. You should hear back in a week or so.

Sounds good, please let me know if I can make your assessment easier by clarifying anything!

[teddygroves]

I made a few minor changes today, including adding the flagged doi for pytest.

@editorialbot generate pdf

[teddygroves]

@editorialbot check references

[teddygroves]

@editorialbot check repository

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.05 s (990.6 files/s, 170927.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          14            143            123            648
Markdown                        13            113              0            379
reStructuredText                 9            141            256            173
TeX                              2             14              0            149
TOML                             4             13              1             75
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0           6586             73
make                             3             22             14             71
YAML                             4             16             11             67
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
JSON                             2              0              0             22
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            53            470           6992           1683
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1202

[teddygroves]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[teddygroves]

@editorialbot check references

[teddygroves]

@editorialbot check repository

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.05 s (1028.0 files/s, 51661.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          14            143            123            648
Markdown                        13            113              0            379
reStructuredText                 9            141            256            173
TeX                              2             14              0            149
YAML                             6             22             12             93
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            170             75
TOML                             4             13              1             75
make                             3             22             14             71
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
JSON                             2              0              0             22
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            55            476            577           1711
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1202

[teddygroves]

fwiw this repository contains over 1000 lines of source code (648+93+75+75+71+26+22 as above + 64 non-blank lines in .stan files not counted by cloc)

[kyleniemeyer]

Hello @teddygroves, unfortunately, after further review, the JOSS editorial team has decided that your submission does not fit our scope in terms of substantial scholarly effort to proceed to review. This is not a judgment about the quality or usefulness of your software.

We encourage you to pursue alternate venues for sharing and receiving credit for your work, including archiving the software on Zenodo to create a DOI.

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot reject

[editorialbot]

Paper rejected.

[teddygroves]

@kyleniemeyer thanks for the pre-review! I’d really like to resubmit this project in the future if possible so I’d very much appreciate some advice if it’s not too much trouble.

First, is it possible to confirm whether the project is in scope as research software? This was part of the original query I think.

Second, is there a particular area that I should focus on in order to demonstrate additional scholarly effort?

[kyleniemeyer]

@teddygroves the feedback focused on the small size, and the fact that it looked more like a minor utility rather than research software. There was also a question about whether a cookie cutter/template would be research software; the software packages that your utility relies on to do the actual calculations/processing/etc. certainly are.

[teddygroves]

Thanks a lot for the extra feedback! It sounds like the research software scope question came up but wasn’t settled definitively, and that the main issue regarding scholarly effort is the amount of code. Good to know!