[REVIEW]: Teaching Python for Data Science: Collaborative development of a modular & interactive curriculum

[whedon]

Submitting author: @bnwolford (Brooke N. Wolford)
Repository: https://github.com/GWC-DCMB/curriculum-notebooks/
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @JasonJWilliamsNY
Reviewer: @lechten, @ThomasA
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5776898

⚠️ JOSE reduced service mode ⚠️

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSE is currently operating in a "reduced service mode".

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/bfcfe417b85c7f0b5bf5b9885110c6d0"><img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/bfcfe417b85c7f0b5bf5b9885110c6d0/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/bfcfe417b85c7f0b5bf5b9885110c6d0/status.svg)](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/bfcfe417b85c7f0b5bf5b9885110c6d0)

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

@lechten & @ThomasA, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @JasonJWilliamsNY 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 ✨

Review checklist for @lechten

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content) #142
• Version: v1.0.0
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@bnwolford) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
• Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
• Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
• Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @ThomasA

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
• Version: v1.0.0
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@bnwolford) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support #154

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
• Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
• Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
• Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @lechten, @ThomasA it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper 🎉.

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

⭐ Important ⭐

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews:

2. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Wordcount for paper.md is 3748

[whedon]

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.79 s (158.3 files/s, 66638.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jupyter Notebook               109              0          46159           2947
XML                              1              0            129           1790
Markdown                         6            142              0            719
TeX                              1             19              0            224
SVG                              1              0              1            212
YAML                             4             10              4            194
Python                           2             12             10             53
Bourne Shell                     1              0              0              8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           125            183          46303           6147
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Statistical information for the repository 'f44f870e32c8e181860f8885' was
gathered on 2021/10/02.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Kelly Sovacool                   1            75              0          100.00

Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:

Author                     Rows      Stability          Age       % in comments
Kelly Sovacool               75          100.0          0.0                5.33

[whedon]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005134 is OK
- 10.1145/268084.268127 is OK
- 10.1016/j.infsof.2009.02.001 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008090 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03021 is OK
- 10.12688/f1000research.3-62.v2 is OK
- 10.1101/2021.06.15.448091 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

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

[JasonJWilliamsNY]

@lechten, @ThomasA - Thanks again for agreeing to review. While we know everyone's schedule is different, we hope that each of you can go through your assigned checklist in the issue over the next two weeks. Review here is public, and is meant to be a discussion with the author to develop the best possible end publication. I am happy to assist and chime in any way I can. I will set a reminder to check in in the next couple of weeks so we can try and keep progress going.

[JasonJWilliamsNY]

@whedon remind @lechten in 2 weeks

[whedon]

Reminder set for @lechten in 2 weeks

[JasonJWilliamsNY]

@whedon remind @ThomasA in 2 weeks

[whedon]

Reminder set for @ThomasA in 2 weeks

[whedon]

👋 @lechten, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

[whedon]

👋 @ThomasA, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

[lechten]

The review process is ongoing. I opened some issues, out of which 2 are still open.

[whedon]

👋 @ThomasA, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

[ThomasA]

I am working on the review now.

[ThomasA]

@JasonJWilliamsNY I thought I originally accepted the invite for the repository, but apparently I cannot check off the review boxes above, so maybe I have not done that right?

[JasonJWilliamsNY]

@ThomasA I have manually sent an invitation. Please let me know if this helps!

[JasonJWilliamsNY]

@kelly-sovacool I notice that the author info/order is different on the Zenodo archive vs. the paper (PDF). Can you update the Zenodo repository (or paper if it is incorrect)?

[kelly-sovacool]

@JasonJWilliamsNY thanks for catching that, I've fixed the author info in Zenodo. The paper is correct.

[JasonJWilliamsNY]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.5776898 as archive

[JasonJWilliamsNY]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.5776898 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.5776898 is the archive.

[JasonJWilliamsNY]

@whedon recommend-accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

👋 @openjournals/jose-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/jose-papers#67

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/jose-papers#67, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

[JasonJWilliamsNY]

@kelly-sovacool last chance to spot any changes; looked good when I reviewed. @labarba can you move us to the next step? Thanks!

[whedon]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005134 is OK
- 10.1145/268084.268127 is OK
- 10.1016/j.infsof.2009.02.001 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008090 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03021 is OK
- 10.12688/f1000research.3-62.v2 is OK
- 10.1101/2021.06.15.448091 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[kelly-sovacool]

Looks great! Thank you for all your work on this @JasonJWilliamsNY @lechten @ThomasA!

[labarba]

@whedon set v1.0.0 as version

[whedon]

OK. v1.0.0 is the version.

[labarba]

hi @bnwolford 👋 — we are ready to publish your JOSE contribution. Before doing so, I wonder if you are willing to give the paper one editing pass to reduce the word count and repetition. For example, I found that the paper explains three times the live coding format, and the pivot to flipped learning after the pandemic. Surely this could be tightened a bit?

[zenalapp]

Thanks for catching that @labarba, we have streamlined the paper and pushed those changes.

[labarba]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

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

[labarba]

@whedon accept deposit=true

[whedon]

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

[whedon]

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSE! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.jose.00138 jose-papers#68
1. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00138
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...

[labarba]

Congratulations, folks! Your JOSE article is published! 🚀

Huge thanks to our Editor: @JasonJWilliamsNY and Reviewers: @lechten, @ThomasA — we couldn't do this without you 🙏

[whedon]

🎉🎉🎉 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://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00138/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00138)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00138">
  <img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00138/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00138/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00138

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Education 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: http://jose.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-jose