[PRE REVIEW]: GeneralizIT: A Python Solution for Generalizability Theory Computations

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @adriennekline (Adrienne Kline)
Repository: https://github.com/tylerjsmith111/GeneralizIT
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main
Version: 0.0.3
Editor: Pending
Reviewers: Pending
Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a1a676919e52f1b157fc9628934fb173"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a1a676919e52f1b157fc9628934fb173/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a1a676919e52f1b157fc9628934fb173/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a1a676919e52f1b157fc9628934fb173)

Author instructions

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

@adriennekline 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 1.90  T=0.03 s (1026.0 files/s, 138507.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          29            642           1468           1799
Markdown                         2            109              0            386
TeX                              1              8              0            111
TOML                             1              6              0             33
YAML                             1              1              4             23
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            34            766           1472           2352
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    14	Tyler Smith

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 2403

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1007/978-1-4757-3456-0 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1992.tb00260.x is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsp.2013.11.008 is OK
- 10.1080/08957347.2011.532417 is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.gtheory is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: G-String-MV

❌ MISSING DOIs

- 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1976.tb00003.x may be a valid DOI for title: The symmetry of generalizability theory: Applicati...
- 10.3109/0142159x.2012.703791 may be a valid DOI for title: Generalizability theory for the perplexed: a pract...
- 10.12738/estp.2015.3.2278 may be a valid DOI for title: Comparing the Effectiveness of SPSS and EduG Using...

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

License info:

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

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

GridTest: testing and metrics collection for Python
Submitting author: @vsoch
Handling editor: @usethedata (Retired)
Reviewers: @cbrueffer, @khinsen
Similarity score: 0.6156

simChef: High-quality data science simulations in R
Submitting author: @jpdunc23
Handling editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman (Active)
Reviewers: @rcannood, @Abinashbunty
Similarity score: 0.6139

cmstatr: An R Package for Statistical Analysis of Composite Material
Data
Submitting author: @kloppen
Handling editor: @usethedata (Retired)
Reviewers: @myousefi2016, @JonasMoss
Similarity score: 0.6112

measr: Bayesian psychometric measurement using Stan
Submitting author: @wjakethompson
Handling editor: @chartgerink (Retired)
Reviewers: @smasongarrison, @Wenchao-Ma, @seandamiandevine
Similarity score: 0.6087

simstudy: Illuminating research methods through data generation
Submitting author: @assignUser
Handling editor: @mikldk (Retired)
Reviewers: @gagolews, @brunaw
Similarity score: 0.6068

⚠️ 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.

[danielskatz]

👋 @adriennekline - Thanks for your submission. It's about 2.5x longer than recommended for a JOSS paper (250-1000 words). Please reduce your paper's length, perhaps moving content to the repository or documentation. You can use the command @editorialbot check repository to check this (along with a number of other things.) The JOSS example paper might be useful to review.

editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

In addition, you could work on the possibly missing DOIs that editorialbot suggests, but note that some may be incorrect. Please feel free to make changes to your .bib file, then use the command @editorialbot check references to check again.

You can also use the command @editorialbot generate pdf to make a new PDF after you've made changes in the .md or .bib files.

[adriennekline]

@editorialbot Hi @danielskatz We've shortened the paper to reflect the most critical information. We don't currently have any DOI other than that provided via Arxiv for the preprint.

[editorialbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

[adriennekline]

@editorialbot commands @danielskatz We've shortened the paper to reflect the most critical information. We don't currently have any DOI other than that provided via Arxiv for the preprint.

[danielskatz]

@adriennekline

@editorialbot commands need to be the first thing in a comment. I'll demonstrate following this, with the command to check and see if there are possibly missing DOIs

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1007/978-1-4757-3456-0 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1992.tb00260.x is OK
- 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1976.tb00003.x is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsp.2013.11.008 is OK
- 10.1080/08957347.2011.532417 is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.gtheory is OK
- 10.3109/0142159X.2012.703791 is OK
- 10.12738/estp.2015.3.2278 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: G-String-MV

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot check repository

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.04 s (931.9 files/s, 122711.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          29            642           1468           1799
Markdown                         2            100              0            277
TeX                              1              8              0            116
TOML                             1              6              0             33
YAML                             1              1              4             23
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            34            757           1472           2248
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    17	Tyler Smith

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1590

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

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

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

simChef: High-quality data science simulations in R
Submitting author: @jpdunc23
Handling editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman (Active)
Reviewers: @rcannood, @Abinashbunty
Similarity score: 0.6354

measr: Bayesian psychometric measurement using Stan
Submitting author: @wjakethompson
Handling editor: @chartgerink (Retired)
Reviewers: @smasongarrison, @Wenchao-Ma, @seandamiandevine
Similarity score: 0.6325

EFAtools: An R package with fast and flexible implementations of exploratory factor analysis tools
Submitting author: @mdsteiner
Handling editor: @fboehm (Active)
Reviewers: @jacobsoj, @chainsawriot
Similarity score: 0.6246

DscoreApp: An user-friendly web application for computing the Implicit Association Test D-score
Submitting author: @OttaviaE
Handling editor: @alexhanna (Retired)
Reviewers: @benmarwick, @tomfaulkenberry
Similarity score: 0.6191

UncertainSCI: A Python Package for Noninvasive Parametric Uncertainty Quantification of Simulation Pipelines
Submitting author: @jessdtate
Handling editor: @kellyrowland (Active)
Reviewers: @shahmoradi, @RichardClayton, @kellyrowland
Similarity score: 0.6138

⚠️ 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.

[adriennekline]

@danielskatz is it with JOSS for editorial review now? I've never submitted here before so am new to the process. Thanks!

[danielskatz]

We've moved it to a more appropriate track, and the track editor will tell you about the next steps soon

[crvernon]

👋 @adriennekline - could you give me a little more background on the development history of your package? Your commit history looks pretty recent and I wanted to get a better idea of when you started this package and how long it has been public. Thanks!

[adriennekline]

Hi @crvernon - certainly! This is a fairly new repository, but based on fundamental statistical tools (generalizability theory) that have previously existing in proprietary platforms : spss, sad, etc. but not in Python until now. The work on the code was started several months ago by myself and completed by my masters students with my supervision at northwestern University in the engineering dept. Hope that helps! Happy to answer more Qs too!

[adriennekline]

Hi @crvernon, Does this make sense? Happy to answer any other Q's you may have.
Best,
Adrienne

[crvernon]

@editorialbot query scope

Hi @adriennekline, thank you for your feedback. I believe I will run this through scope review with our larger editorial board since the development time has been very short. I will get back to you ASAP with a response. Thank you!

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[adriennekline]

thanks @crvernon There is no mention of 'duration' of repo being a prerequisite in the submission process.

[crvernon]

Hi @adriennekline it is listed here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#substantial-scholarly-effort

Specifically,

As a rule of thumb, JOSS’ minimum allowable contribution should represent not less than three months of work

and also in the requirement bullet points here:

• Age of software (is this a well-established software project) / length of commit history.
• Number of commits.

The commit history of the GeneralizIT repository submitted was only a few commits over the past 3 weeks. This is the reason for the scope check. Thanks!

[crvernon]

@editorialbot reject

👋 @adriennekline - after further review with our editorial board, we have decided that your submission does not meet the scope requirements necessary to be reviewed by JOSS. Thank you for your submission and we wish you the best with your future endeavors.

[editorialbot]

Paper rejected.

[adriennekline]

HI @crvernon can you kindly provide some more information as to why this does not within JOSS's scope? Is it the duration of the repo? This constitutes open source software and a python package intended for broad statistical implementations, and would otherwise seem to fit within the scope.