[REVIEW]: ProMCDA: A Python package for Probabilistic Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis #6190

editorialbot · 2024-01-08T21:30:10Z

Submitting author: @Flaminietta (Flaminia Catalli)
Repository: https://github.com/wetransform-os/ProMCDA
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main
Version: v1.1.0
Editor: @galessiorob
Reviewers: @limengbinggz, @B3J4y, @paulrougieux
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.13694286

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/cd66aa1ed9ff89b5519d977f4a16379d"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/cd66aa1ed9ff89b5519d977f4a16379d/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/cd66aa1ed9ff89b5519d977f4a16379d/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/cd66aa1ed9ff89b5519d977f4a16379d)

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

@limengbinggz & @B3J4y, 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 @galessiorob 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 @limengbinggz

📝 Checklist for @B3J4y

📝 Checklist for @paulrougieux

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

editorialbot · 2024-01-08T21:30:13Z

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 · 2024-01-08T21:30:14Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.05 s (541.8 files/s, 87446.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          18            493            306           2030
HTML                             1             84              5            620
Markdown                         2             75              0            256
TeX                              1             16              0            220
YAML                             3              8              2             58
JSON                             1              4              0             19
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            26            680            313           3203
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot · 2024-01-08T21:30:15Z

Wordcount for paper.md is 1415

editorialbot · 2024-01-08T21:30:16Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/s10669-020-09784-x is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105208 is OK
- 10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00163-X is OK
- 10.1016/j.dss.2022.113848 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04567 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104890 is OK
- 10.1016/j.omega.2017.04.007 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4757-2500-1_2 is OK
- 10.1007/0-387-31099-1_2 is OK
- 10.1007/s11205-017-1832-9 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.009 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105731 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.08.023 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4939-3094-4_12 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.05.014 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-01-08T21:31:17Z

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

galessiorob · 2024-01-08T21:31:43Z

🚀 @limengbinggz, @B3J4y thank you so much for volunteering to review this paper! Please comment @editorialbot generate my checklist and start your review at your earliest convenience. Let me know if you have any questions.

galessiorob · 2024-01-08T21:34:41Z

👋 Hi @paulrougieux! @Flaminietta suggested you'd be a good reviewer for this paper - do you have the bandwidth to help us out? Thanks!

B3J4y · 2024-01-09T05:57:56Z

Review checklist for @B3J4y

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/wetransform-os/ProMCDA?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@Flaminietta) 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?

B3J4y · 2024-01-09T06:30:35Z

Opened Issue:

JOSS Paper: The Tables are Partially Visible wetransform-os/ProMCDA#18

paulrougieux · 2024-01-09T07:11:07Z

I accept this review.

👋 Hi @paulrougieux! @Flaminietta suggested you'd be a good reviewer for this paper - do you have the bandwidth to help us out? Thanks!

Dear @galessiorob I can do the review within a bit more than 2 weeks.

Flaminietta · 2024-01-09T09:15:26Z

@editorialbot generate preprint

editorialbot · 2024-01-09T09:16:00Z

📄 Preprint file created: Find it here in the Artifacts list 📄

Flaminietta · 2024-01-09T09:44:45Z

@editorialbot generate preprint

editorialbot · 2024-01-09T09:45:12Z

📄 Preprint file created: Find it here in the Artifacts list 📄

Flaminietta · 2024-01-09T11:21:58Z

@editorialbot generate preprint

editorialbot · 2024-01-09T11:22:26Z

📄 Preprint file created: Find it here in the Artifacts list 📄

limengbinggz · 2024-01-09T19:27:00Z

Review checklist for @limengbinggz

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/wetransform-os/ProMCDA?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@Flaminietta) 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?

galessiorob · 2024-01-15T18:35:13Z

👋 Hi everyone! Checking in to see if anyone has questions on the review process or the paper itself, thanks!

B3J4y · 2024-01-18T06:08:58Z

Hi, thank you for checking in. I have no questions from my side so far.

B3J4y · 2024-01-18T09:24:05Z

Could not run the example wetransform-os/ProMCDA#19

paulrougieux · 2024-01-31T13:47:01Z

@editorialbot generate my checklist

editorialbot · 2024-01-31T13:47:02Z

@paulrougieux I can't do that because you are not a reviewer

samhforbes · 2024-12-11T11:55:56Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-12-11T11:55:59Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-12-11T11:56:17Z

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1007/s10669-020-09784-x is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2404.06370 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105208 is OK
- 10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00163-X is OK
- 10.1016/j.dss.2022.113848 is OK
- 10.1016/j.softx.2023.101368 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04567 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104890 is OK
- 10.1016/j.omega.2017.04.007 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4757-2500-1_2 is OK
- 10.1007/0-387-31099-1_2 is OK
- 10.1007/s11205-017-1832-9 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.009 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105731 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.08.023 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4939-3094-4_12 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.05.014 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: The global competitiveness report 2018

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-12-11T11:56:41Z

⚠️ Error preparing paper acceptance.

samhforbes · 2024-12-11T11:59:27Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-12-11T12:00:09Z

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

mspada · 2024-12-11T13:03:56Z

Hello @samhforbes,

we corrected the error that happened 1 hour ago.
For some reasons the figure files where not anymore in the folder.
We added them back and now it should work out with the publication (I hope so :-))

Best,
Matteo and Flaminia

samhforbes · 2024-12-11T13:06:08Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-12-11T13:07:42Z

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

mspada · 2024-12-18T15:29:36Z

Hi @galessiorob, @arfon, @samhforbes,

It seems to be working now!
However, the layout could use some adjustment—specifically, Tables 1 and 2 should ideally be on the same page.
What’s the best way to address this?
Should we make the corrections ourselves, or is there editorial support available for this?

Best,
Matteo and Flaminia

samhforbes · 2024-12-18T16:55:39Z

Hi @mspada
Yes sorry I could see it worked - but yes, we don't really have person-power for improving the look of the articles. If you need them to appear together you can make that change, although I can see that might be a challenge given the size of each of the tables? Just let us know how you'd like to proceed

mspada · 2024-12-20T10:11:13Z

Hi @samhforbes,
I'll try to give the paper a nicer layout today.
Just a question: can I use the editorialbot to generate the pdf myself to check how it will look like?
Thanks

samhforbes · 2024-12-20T13:32:23Z

yes you can with the generate pdf command!

mspada · 2024-12-20T13:33:21Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-12-20T13:34:47Z

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

mspada · 2024-12-20T13:41:28Z

@samhforbes,
we are fine with the final version (the layout is not perfect, but OK).

samhforbes · 2024-12-20T13:42:55Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-12-20T13:42:57Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-12-20T13:43:14Z

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1007/s10669-020-09784-x is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2404.06370 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105208 is OK
- 10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00163-X is OK
- 10.1016/j.dss.2022.113848 is OK
- 10.1016/j.softx.2023.101368 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04567 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104890 is OK
- 10.1016/j.omega.2017.04.007 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4757-2500-1_2 is OK
- 10.1007/0-387-31099-1_2 is OK
- 10.1007/s11205-017-1832-9 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.009 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105731 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.08.023 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4939-3094-4_12 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.05.014 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: The global competitiveness report 2018

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-12-20T13:44:33Z

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

ID tabU003Atable1 already defined
ID tabU003Atable2 already defined
ID tabU003Atable3 already defined

samhforbes · 2024-12-20T14:00:14Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-12-20T14:01:47Z

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

samhforbes · 2024-12-20T14:05:36Z

@mspada looks like an issue with the table metadata. Tagging @arfon in case he knows more about this!

mspada · 2024-12-20T14:09:16Z

@samhforbes,
Thanks, I saw the issue, but I do not understand why it is happening, since the IDs are defined only once in the .md file.

danielskatz · 2024-12-20T14:42:56Z

@samhforbes - the right folks to tag are @openjournals/dev

samhforbes · 2024-12-20T14:43:50Z

Thanks @danielskatz

arfon · 2024-12-20T16:39:22Z

Thanks, I saw the issue, but I do not understand why it is happening, since the IDs are defined only once in the .md file.

Is there a reason you're defining the IDs manually? Could you try removing them?

mspada · 2024-12-20T17:58:01Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-12-20T17:59:32Z

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

mspada · 2024-12-20T18:10:08Z

@samhforbes, @arfon,
I removed the IDs and the editorialbot is able to generate the pdf correctly.
Could you please check if now the acceptance works?
Thank you!

editorialbot added HTML Python review TeX Track: 4 (SBCS) Social, Behavioral, and Cognitive Sciences labels Jan 8, 2024

editorialbot assigned galessiorob Jan 8, 2024

editorialbot mentioned this issue Jan 8, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: ProMCDA: A Python package for Probabilistic Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis #6137

Closed

paulrougieux mentioned this issue Jan 31, 2024

Paper: add plots to illustrate some of the package's functionality wetransform-os/ProMCDA#23

Closed

[REVIEW]: ProMCDA: A Python package for Probabilistic Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis #6190

[REVIEW]: ProMCDA: A Python package for Probabilistic Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis #6190

Comments

editorialbot commented Jan 8, 2024 • edited by galessiorob Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Jan 8, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 8, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 8, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 8, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 8, 2024

galessiorob commented Jan 8, 2024

galessiorob commented Jan 8, 2024

B3J4y commented Jan 9, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @B3J4y

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

B3J4y commented Jan 9, 2024 • edited Loading

paulrougieux commented Jan 9, 2024

Flaminietta commented Jan 9, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2024

Flaminietta commented Jan 9, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2024

Flaminietta commented Jan 9, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2024

limengbinggz commented Jan 9, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @limengbinggz

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

galessiorob commented Jan 15, 2024

B3J4y commented Jan 18, 2024

B3J4y commented Jan 18, 2024 • edited Loading

paulrougieux commented Jan 31, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 31, 2024

samhforbes commented Dec 11, 2024

editorialbot commented Dec 11, 2024

editorialbot commented Dec 11, 2024

editorialbot commented Dec 11, 2024

samhforbes commented Dec 11, 2024

editorialbot commented Dec 11, 2024

mspada commented Dec 11, 2024

samhforbes commented Dec 11, 2024

editorialbot commented Dec 11, 2024

mspada commented Dec 18, 2024

samhforbes commented Dec 18, 2024

mspada commented Dec 20, 2024 • edited Loading

samhforbes commented Dec 20, 2024

mspada commented Dec 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Dec 20, 2024

mspada commented Dec 20, 2024

samhforbes commented Dec 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Dec 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Dec 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Dec 20, 2024

samhforbes commented Dec 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Dec 20, 2024

samhforbes commented Dec 20, 2024

mspada commented Dec 20, 2024

danielskatz commented Dec 20, 2024

samhforbes commented Dec 20, 2024

arfon commented Dec 20, 2024

mspada commented Dec 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Dec 20, 2024

mspada commented Dec 20, 2024 • edited Loading

editorialbot commented Jan 8, 2024 •

edited by galessiorob

Loading

B3J4y commented Jan 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

B3J4y commented Jan 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

limengbinggz commented Jan 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

B3J4y commented Jan 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mspada commented Dec 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mspada commented Dec 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading