[REVIEW]: Pythagora: A Python Package for Modeling the Impact of Social Networks on Market Outcomes

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @AnnieKLamar (Annie K. Lamar)
Repository: https://github.com/stwilker/pythagora
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 1.1.0
Editor: @sbenthall
Reviewers: @pitmonticone
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8091165ad2038a4a4cab0f1f4593ea6f"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8091165ad2038a4a4cab0f1f4593ea6f/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8091165ad2038a4a4cab0f1f4593ea6f/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8091165ad2038a4a4cab0f1f4593ea6f)

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

@dataspider & @pitmonticone, 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 @sbenthall 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

@dataspider, please create your checklist typing: @editorialbot generate my checklist

@pitmonticone, please create your checklist typing: @editorialbot generate my checklist

[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=0.08 s (604.8 files/s, 240708.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML                            20           4674             75           6632
JavaScript                       6            578           1411           2488
CSS                              2            338            114           1483
Python                          10            239            730           1175
Markdown                         2             78              0            184
TeX                              1              4              0             30
TOML                             1              2              0             21
YAML                             1              1              4             19
SVG                              6              0              0             16
JSON                             2              0              0              2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            51           5914           2334          12050
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    17	AnnieKLamar
    13	Annie Lamar
     4	Sarah T. Wilker
     2	Annie K. Lamar

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- None

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Social Life of Ancient Markets: Using Formal N...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Toasting Across Empires: Drinking Vessels, Product...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Netlogo

❌ MISSING DOIs

- 10.25080/tcwv9851 may be a valid DOI for title: Exploring network structure, dynamics, and functio...

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1217

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

🟡 License found: Other (Check here for OSI approval)

[editorialbot]

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

[sbenthall]

@AnnieKLamar One issue that has been flagged by the editorial bot is that the license of your submission (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International) is not OSI (Open Source Initiative) approved.

I wonder if you would consider an alternative license for your submission. I can also ask the other editors if there are any possible exemptions to the OSI rule.

[sbenthall]

@AnnieKLamar I expect you have been following the conversation on #7137

@dataspider has requested to be removed as a reviewer. I will soon begin a search for another one.

I want to apologize for the procedural challenges here. This has been an irregular process.

I wonder if you have any response to @dataspider's recommendations before I try to restart the review process.

In particular, it has been proposed that you might resubmit the package, but with 'major revisions'. Would you be open to that? Or would you prefer to continue on with the current submission for formal review?

[AnnieKLamar]

Hi @sbenthall -- thank you for managing this process.

Given that this package is the result of several years of work and -- to my understanding -- meets the checklist requirements, we do not think that our work requires major revisions. We will continue with the current submission.

We do have a couple questions:

1. We would like to make small changes -- would you let us know if it is okay to make these changes within the context of the current submission, rather than re-submitting?

• Change the license type to one that is OSI approved. We apologize for the oversight.
• Add more detail to the previous scholarship / references section, which we intentionally left sparse for the sake of brevity and the context of JOSS, but we are happy to expand to clarify the positionality of our work.

2. The former reviewer seemed especially concerned with the "Automated Tests" checklist item ("Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?"). We included manual steps and extensive documentation, which we believed met this requirement (based on our reading of several previously published JOSS papers). Do you have a suggestion or clarification in regards to this item?

Thank you again for your time managing the review process--we appreciate your feedback.

[sbenthall]

@editorialbot remove @dataspider from reviewers

[editorialbot]

@dataspider removed from the reviewers list!

[sbenthall]

Sorry for the slow response.

I'll start the process of looking for a second reviewer.

Regarding your requests:

• small changes are in fact encouraged, since the purpose of the review process is to improve the submission.
• I encourage you to look up unit testing as an automated testing idea. The concept is to create scripts that test the functionality of specific components of the software, to demonstrate their functionality and ensure their robustness as the software evolves. I'm not a reviewer, so this is not my own articulation of the review criteria. However, it is what I would look for if I were reviewing.

[sbenthall]

@dostuffthatmatters We we looking for a second reviewer for this JOSS submission, to fill in for one that has dropped off. You were mentioned by the authors as a potential reviewer for this piece. Would you be willing to take it on?

[dostuffthatmatters]

Hi @sbenthall,

I appreciate the offer.

I read the pre-review and review thread and looked at the codebase. I am of the same opinion as @dataspider. This submission requires a lot of work to meet the JOSS criteria. In addition to @dataspider's comments, the paper is not well embedded in its scientific domain: there is only one domain reference (Netlogo) not authored by the submitting author – and only four references in total.

For the same reason as @dataspider, I am not comfortable reviewing this submission:

I understand that JOSS wants authors to work with reviewers to meet the checklist criteria, but when meeting the scope criteria would essentially require a complete revamp...?

Best,
Moritz Makowski

[AnnieKLamar]

@sbenthall

It's clear we need to significantly re-think the framing of our paper and augment our code. We would like to withdraw this submission and re-submit after these corrections are made. Sincere thanks for your time and the advice of the reviewers in this thread.

[sbenthall]

Thank you for understanding @AnnieKLamar

Good luck with the re-submission.

[sbenthall]

@samhforbes Please see this thread. The authors have withdrawn the submission. From the docs, it looks like only the EIC can issue the withdraw command to the editorialbot. Thanks.

[samhforbes]

Thanks all for discussing the issue, and we look forward to the resubmission @AnnieKLamar if you decide to pursue that. Thanks for handling this one @sbenthall

[samhforbes]

@editorialbot withdraw

[editorialbot]

Paper withdrawn.

[samhforbes]

@AnnieKLamar I would add as well, if you decide to resubmit please do reference this issue.