[REVIEW]: Multivariate Covariance Generalized Linear Models in Python: The mcglm library #6037

editorialbot · 2023-11-08T17:07:41Z

Submitting author: @jeancmaia (Jean Carlos Maia)
Repository: https://github.com/jeancmaia/mcglm
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main
Version: v0.2.4
Editor: @crvernon
Reviewers: @Spaak, @bkrayfield
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.12569050

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b0cf48e0bc9265d2ad754b1d33475936"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b0cf48e0bc9265d2ad754b1d33475936/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b0cf48e0bc9265d2ad754b1d33475936/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b0cf48e0bc9265d2ad754b1d33475936)

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

@Spaak & @bkrayfield, 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 @AJQuinn 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

📝 Checklist for @bkrayfield

📝 Checklist for @Spaak

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

editorialbot · 2023-11-08T17:07:44Z

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 · 2023-11-08T17:07:46Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.68 s (319.9 files/s, 27347.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          10            584            640           3674
CSS                              4             36             12           1838
R                                1             76             74           1515
Jupyter Notebook                 4              0           7572            836
JavaScript                       6             80             88            633
TeX                              1             38              0            281
Markdown                         2             48              0            222
JSON                           184              0              0            184
YAML                             2              6              4             41
TOML                             1              5              0             25
make                             1              4              7              9
reStructuredText                 1              6              7              7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           217            883           8404           9265
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot · 2023-11-08T17:07:48Z

Wordcount for paper.md is 1744

editorialbot · 2023-11-08T17:07:52Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.7287/PEERJ.PREPRINTS.1686V1 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1809.10756 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1810.09538 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v076.i01 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v084.i04 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1409.7482 is OK
- 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1987.tb01685.x is OK
- 10.1002/1097-0258(20000730)19:14<1952::AID-SIM474>3.0.CO;2-K is OK
- 10.1214/12-EJS721 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmva.2013.05.001 is OK
- 10.2307/2344614 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-21551-3_24 is OK
- 10.1214/ss/1177013604 is OK
- 10.1214/aos/1176345451 is OK
- 10.1002/9781118445112.stat07536 is OK
- 10.2307/2841583 is OK
- 10.2307/2333849 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v084.i04 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-011 is OK
- 10.1177/0962280212445834 is OK
- 10.1214/12-EJS721 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmva.2013.05.001 is OK
- 10.1093/biomet/73.1.13 is OK
- 10.1111/rssc.12145 is OK
- 10.1515/ijb-2017-0001 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-11-08T17:09:14Z

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

AJQuinn · 2023-11-08T17:12:29Z

👋🏼 @jeancmaia @Spaak @bkrayfield this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

For @Spaak and @bkrayfield - As a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering

@editorialbot generate my checklist

as the top of a new comment in this thread. Please can you do this soon as a confirmation that you've seen the review starting.

These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. Summary conversation is great on this thread but try to avoid substantial discussion about the repository here, this should take place in issues on the source repository.

When discussing the submission on an issue thread, please mention #6037 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if any of you require some more time. We can also use EditorialBot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@AJQuinn) if you have any questions/concerns.

bkrayfield · 2023-11-09T04:34:14Z

Review checklist for @bkrayfield

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

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

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/jeancmaia/mcglm?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@jeancmaia) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

Spaak · 2023-11-09T07:21:58Z

Review checklist for @Spaak

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

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

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/jeancmaia/mcglm?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@jeancmaia) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

Spaak · 2023-12-20T09:36:50Z

@jeancmaia As for API docs: some more details could be added. power_fixed/maxiter/tol/tuning/weights are all underspecified. (I can imagine some things they do in the optimization step, but better to make this explicit, e.g. by briefly explaining the type of optimization done here.) Also Ntrial has a capital N (against common style).

Spaak · 2023-12-20T09:41:03Z

@jeancmaia I appreciate the extensive tutorial (jeancmaia/mcglm#7) but that appears to be the only web presence besides the PyPI install page (and github). I'd recommend at least making sure there is a hosted version of the API docs available somewhere.

Also there are no community guidelines (see review checklist item) anywhere, I'd recommend adding these to either wherever you end up putting the web API docs or (and) simply in README.md on github.

Spaak · 2023-12-20T09:52:16Z

@jeancmaia I'd recommend going over the paper a final time for a thorough language check. While it's clearly written, there are some minor issues that should be (easy to) fix(ed).

jeancmaia · 2023-12-29T18:53:07Z

@Spaak Thanks for the comprehensive feedback. I have revamped the project by incorporating all the aforementioned items.

The new API Docs is hosted on: https://mcglm.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
The new paper is available on: https://github.com/jeancmaia/mcglm/blob/main/paper.md

It would be great if you could check the project out again. Thanks :)

AJQuinn · 2024-01-10T10:30:56Z

Thanks @Spaak for the review and to @jeancmaia for the quick response.

@bkrayfield - thanks for your work so far, do you have a sense when you'd be able to complete the review/checklist? Let me know if you need any additional input.

jeancmaia · 2024-04-24T17:33:42Z

Hey @AJQuinn, I hope you're doing well. Just to catch up. I wanted to check in to see if there's anything else you need from me to move forward with the article review. Thank you for your time!"

crvernon · 2024-05-07T10:54:23Z

👋 @jeancmaia - I am the AEiC for this track of submissions and I can help out a bit here. I looks like there are still a few open pull requests. Can you provide some feedback on the status of those here in this thread?

👋 @Spaak and @bkrayfield - could you provide a short update to where you are in the review process?

Thanks so much!

jeancmaia · 2024-05-07T11:15:20Z

Hey @crvernon. I have addressed all the great feedback provided by @Spaak and refactored both the library and the paper.

Thanks!

crvernon · 2024-05-07T11:16:37Z

Thanks @jeancmaia!

bkrayfield · 2024-05-13T18:00:34Z

Hello @crvernon, end of semester work has slowed me down, but making progress. Should be rounding everything up this week.

editorialbot · 2024-06-27T14:23:52Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-06-27T14:24:15Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.7287/PEERJ.PREPRINTS.1686V1 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1809.10756 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1810.09538 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v076.i01 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v084.i04 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1409.7482 is OK
- 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1987.tb01685.x is OK
- 10.1002/1097-0258(20000730)19:14<1952::AID-SIM474>3.0.CO;2-K is OK
- 10.1214/12-EJS721 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmva.2013.05.001 is OK
- 10.2307/2344614 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-21551-3_24 is OK
- 10.1214/ss/1177013604 is OK
- 10.1214/aos/1176345451 is OK
- 10.1002/9781118445112.stat07536 is OK
- 10.2307/2841583 is OK
- 10.2307/2333849 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v084.i04 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-011 is OK
- 10.3844/jcssp.2021.624.638 is OK
- 10.1177/0962280212445834 is OK
- 10.1214/12-EJS721 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmva.2013.05.001 is OK
- 10.1093/biomet/73.1.13 is OK
- 10.1111/rssc.12145 is OK
- 10.1515/ijb-2017-0001 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-06-27T14:25:13Z

⚠️ Error preparing paper acceptance. The generated XML metadata file is invalid.

ID tabU003Amethods already defined
ID ref-BonatU003A2018 already defined
ID ref-MasarottoU003A2012 already defined
ID ref-KrupskiiU003A2013 already defined

jeancmaia · 2024-06-27T14:40:20Z

I have found duplicated refs on the paper.bib. Solved.

crvernon · 2024-06-27T14:45:36Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-06-27T14:45:37Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-06-27T14:45:53Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.7287/PEERJ.PREPRINTS.1686V1 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1809.10756 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1810.09538 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v076.i01 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1409.7482 is OK
- 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1987.tb01685.x is OK
- 10.1002/1097-0258(20000730)19:14<1952::AID-SIM474>3.0.CO;2-K is OK
- 10.2307/2344614 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-21551-3_24 is OK
- 10.1214/ss/1177013604 is OK
- 10.1214/aos/1176345451 is OK
- 10.1002/9781118445112.stat07536 is OK
- 10.2307/2841583 is OK
- 10.2307/2333849 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v084.i04 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-011 is OK
- 10.3844/jcssp.2021.624.638 is OK
- 10.1177/0962280212445834 is OK
- 10.1214/12-EJS721 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmva.2013.05.001 is OK
- 10.1093/biomet/73.1.13 is OK
- 10.1111/rssc.12145 is OK
- 10.1515/ijb-2017-0001 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-06-27T14:47:16Z

⚠️ Error preparing paper acceptance. The generated XML metadata file is invalid.

ID tabU003Amethods already defined

jeancmaia · 2024-06-27T16:30:14Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-06-27T16:30:16Z

I'm sorry @jeancmaia, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do.

jeancmaia · 2024-06-27T16:31:28Z

@crvernon Would you mind re-running it again? I have pushed a new paper.md version.

crvernon · 2024-06-27T16:32:18Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-06-27T16:32:19Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-06-27T16:32:35Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.7287/PEERJ.PREPRINTS.1686V1 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1809.10756 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1810.09538 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v076.i01 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1409.7482 is OK
- 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1987.tb01685.x is OK
- 10.1002/1097-0258(20000730)19:14<1952::AID-SIM474>3.0.CO;2-K is OK
- 10.2307/2344614 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-21551-3_24 is OK
- 10.1214/ss/1177013604 is OK
- 10.1214/aos/1176345451 is OK
- 10.1002/9781118445112.stat07536 is OK
- 10.2307/2841583 is OK
- 10.2307/2333849 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v084.i04 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-011 is OK
- 10.3844/jcssp.2021.624.638 is OK
- 10.1177/0962280212445834 is OK
- 10.1214/12-EJS721 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmva.2013.05.001 is OK
- 10.1093/biomet/73.1.13 is OK
- 10.1111/rssc.12145 is OK
- 10.1515/ijb-2017-0001 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-06-27T16:34:12Z

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

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#5544, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

crvernon · 2024-06-27T16:41:03Z

@ediorialbot accept

crvernon · 2024-06-27T17:05:08Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2024-06-27T17:05:11Z

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

editorialbot · 2024-06-27T17:11:48Z

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Maia
  given-names: Jean Carlos Faoot
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3747-0669"
- family-names: Bonat
  given-names: Wagner Hugo
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0349-7054"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12569050
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Maia
    given-names: Jean Carlos Faoot
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3747-0669"
  - family-names: Bonat
    given-names: Wagner Hugo
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0349-7054"
  date-published: 2024-06-27
  doi: 10.21105/joss.06037
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 98
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 6037
  title: "Multivariate Covariance Generalized Linear Models in Python:
    The mcglm library"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06037"
  volume: 9
title: "Multivariate Covariance Generalized Linear Models in Python: The
  mcglm library"

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

editorialbot · 2024-06-27T17:11:51Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2024-06-27T17:11:52Z

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

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.06037 joss-papers#5546
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06037
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

crvernon · 2024-06-27T17:14:22Z

🥳 Congratulations on your new publication @jeancmaia! Many thanks to @Spaak and @bkrayfield for your time, hard work, and expertise!! JOSS wouldn't be able to function nor succeed without your efforts.

Please consider becoming a reviewer for JOSS if you are not already: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join

editorialbot · 2024-06-27T17:14:24Z

🎉🎉🎉 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://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06037/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06037)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06037">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06037/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06037/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06037

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The Journal of Open Source Software 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: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

jeancmaia · 2024-06-27T17:20:17Z

That's fabulous. Thanks @crvernon.

For some reason, the paper is not rendering on the JOSS page. https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06037. Also, when I attempted to download it, I received a 404. Are you facing this issue too?

crvernon · 2024-06-27T17:49:48Z

@jeancmaia the record likely is still finalizing. I will check in on it in a bit.

jeancmaia · 2024-06-27T18:27:00Z

It is working now. Thank you!!

editorialbot added Jupyter Notebook Python R review Track: 5 (DSAIS) Data Science, Artificial Intelligence, and Machine Learning waitlisted Submissions in the JOSS backlog due to reduced service mode. labels Nov 8, 2023

editorialbot assigned AJQuinn Nov 8, 2023

editorialbot mentioned this issue Nov 8, 2023

[PRE REVIEW]: Multivariate Covariance Generalized Linear Models in Python: The mcglm library #5818

Closed

AJQuinn removed the waitlisted Submissions in the JOSS backlog due to reduced service mode. label Nov 8, 2023

This was referenced Dec 1, 2023

Installation fails via pip (macOS) jeancmaia/mcglm#5

Closed

Going through tutorial jeancmaia/mcglm#7

Closed

Spaak mentioned this issue Dec 20, 2023

MCGLM could accept numpy arrays directly (compatibility with statsmodels) jeancmaia/mcglm#10

Closed

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Jun 27, 2024

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Jun 27, 2024

crvernon closed this as completed Jun 27, 2024

[REVIEW]: Multivariate Covariance Generalized Linear Models in Python: The mcglm library #6037

[REVIEW]: Multivariate Covariance Generalized Linear Models in Python: The mcglm library #6037

Comments

editorialbot commented Nov 8, 2023 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Nov 8, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 8, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 8, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 8, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 8, 2023

AJQuinn commented Nov 8, 2023

bkrayfield commented Nov 9, 2023 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @bkrayfield

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Spaak commented Nov 9, 2023 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @Spaak

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Spaak commented Dec 20, 2023

Spaak commented Dec 20, 2023

Spaak commented Dec 20, 2023

jeancmaia commented Dec 29, 2023

AJQuinn commented Jan 10, 2024

jeancmaia commented Apr 24, 2024

crvernon commented May 7, 2024

jeancmaia commented May 7, 2024

crvernon commented May 7, 2024

bkrayfield commented May 13, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 27, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 27, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 27, 2024

jeancmaia commented Jun 27, 2024

crvernon commented Jun 27, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 27, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 27, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 27, 2024

jeancmaia commented Jun 27, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 27, 2024

jeancmaia commented Jun 27, 2024

crvernon commented Jun 27, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 27, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 27, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 27, 2024

crvernon commented Jun 27, 2024

crvernon commented Jun 27, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 27, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 27, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 27, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 27, 2024

crvernon commented Jun 27, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 27, 2024

jeancmaia commented Jun 27, 2024

crvernon commented Jun 27, 2024

jeancmaia commented Jun 27, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 8, 2023 •

edited

Loading

bkrayfield commented Nov 9, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Spaak commented Nov 9, 2023 •

edited

Loading