[PRE REVIEW]: Pycausal-Explorer: A Scikit-learn compatible causal inference toolkit

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @gotolino (Guilherme Goto Escudero)
Repository: https://github.com/gotolino/pycausal-explorer
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.2.0
Editor: @teonbrooks
Reviewers: @sara-02, @saeedahmadicp
Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/78fb4501134f9fa186e48065bd490448"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/78fb4501134f9fa186e48065bd490448/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/78fb4501134f9fa186e48065bd490448/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/78fb4501134f9fa186e48065bd490448)

Author instructions

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

@gotolino 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 1.88  T=0.05 s (1395.6 files/s, 75277.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          49            612            467           1582
reStructuredText                 5            129             75            188
Markdown                         4             40              0            163
YAML                             4             20             22            107
TeX                              1             12              0            100
TOML                             1              0              0             16
make                             1              4              6              9
CSS                              1              1              0              7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            66            818            570           2172
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 704

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1214/18-aos1709 may be a valid DOI for title: Generalized random forests
- 10.1080/01621459.1999.10473858 may be a valid DOI for title: Causal effects in nonexperimental studies: Reevaluating the evaluation of training programs
- 10.1080/01621459.2017.1319839 may be a valid DOI for title: Estimation and inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using random forests
- 10.1093/biomet/asaa076 may be a valid DOI for title: Quasi-oracle estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects
- 10.3386/w23564 may be a valid DOI for title: Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters
- 10.1002/sim.8792 may be a valid DOI for title: Confounder selection strategies targeting stable treatment effect estimators

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

PyExperimenter: Easily distribute experiments and track results
Submitting author: @tornede
Handling editor: @timtroendle (Active)
Reviewers: @ArsamAryandoust, @schnorr
Similarity score: 0.8293

exoplanet: Gradient-based probabilistic inference for exoplanet data & other astronomical time series
Submitting author: @dfm
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @grburgess, @benjaminpope
Similarity score: 0.8247

PyGModels: A Python package for exploring Probabilistic Graphical Models with Graph Theoretical Structures
Submitting author: @D-K-E
Handling editor: @dfm (Active)
Reviewers: @eigenfoo, @ankurankan
Similarity score: 0.8244

PyEI: A Python package for ecological inference
Submitting author: @karink520
Handling editor: @drvinceknight (Active)
Reviewers: @matt-graham, @pmyteh
Similarity score: 0.8210

AgentPy: A package for agent-based modeling in Python
Submitting author: @JoelForamitti
Handling editor: @sbenthall (Active)
Reviewers: @jamesdamillington, @martibosch
Similarity score: 0.8147

⚠️ 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.

[arfon]

@gotolino - thanks for your submission to JOSS. We're currently managing a large backlog of submissions and the editor most appropriate for your area is already rather busy.

For now, we will need to waitlist this paper and process it as the queue reduces. Thanks for your patience!

[sara-02]

@arfon @gotolino I would like to volunteer to review this as and when available.

[arfon]

@editorialbot invite @teonbrooks as editor

👋 @teonbrooks – would you be willing to edit this submission for JOSS?

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[teonbrooks]

hi @arfon, I'm happy to take this on as editor.

[teonbrooks]

@editorialbot assign @teonbrooks as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @teonbrooks is now the editor

[teonbrooks]

👋 @saeedahmadicp - Would you be willing to review this submission to JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[teonbrooks]

👋 @srmnitc - Would you be willing to review this submission to JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[editorialbot]

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

[saeedahmadicp]

Hi, @teonbrooks, I am happy to review this submission to JOSS.

[srmnitc]

👋 @srmnitc - Would you be willing to review this submission to JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

This submission looks interesting, but I am currently editing for JOSS. So I have to unfortunately skip this one.

[arfon]

@srmnitc – it might be a good idea for you to mark yourself as unavailable in the reviewers application now you're an editor here too.

[arfon]

@teonbrooks – it looks like @sara-02 and @saeedahmadicp are both volunteering to review here 🎉

[teonbrooks]

@srmnitc thanks for the response and totally understand.

[teonbrooks]

thanks @sara-02 and @saeedahmadicp for agreeing to review! 🥳

[teonbrooks]

@editorialbot add @sara-02 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@sara-02 added to the reviewers list!

[teonbrooks]

@editorialbot add @saeedahmadicp as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@saeedahmadicp added to the reviewers list!

[teonbrooks]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6549.