[REVIEW]: Kezdi.jl: A data analysis package for economists

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @korenmiklos (Miklós Koren)
Repository: https://github.com/codedthinking/Kezdi.jl
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper
Version: v0.5.4
Editor: @lucaferranti
Reviewers: @nilshg, @pdeffebach
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/ab178bfb821a654dfdcf70064c973984"><img src="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/ab178bfb821a654dfdcf70064c973984/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/ab178bfb821a654dfdcf70064c973984/status.svg)](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/ab178bfb821a654dfdcf70064c973984)

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

@nilshg & @pdeffebach, 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 @lucaferranti 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 @nilshg

[editorialbot]

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 source files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.98  T=0.02 s (1357.1 files/s, 191292.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TeX                              9            272            178           2481
YAML                             5              0              3            171
SVG                              1              0              0            113
Ruby                             1              8              4             45
Markdown                         2             15              3             43
Julia                            3              9              2             19
TOML                             2              2              0             11
make                             1              0              0              4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            24            306            190           2887
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   258	Miklós Koren
    78	Gergely Attila Kiss
    13	Miklos Koren
     4	Gergely Attila Kiss (Geri)
     4	dependabot[bot]
     3	CompatHelper Julia

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- None

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Ten simple rules for creating a replication packag...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Learning from reproducing computational results: i...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Chain.jl [software]
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ReadStatTables.jl [software]
- No DOI given, and none found for title: DataFrames.jl [software]
- No DOI given, and none found for title: FreqTables.jl [software]
- No DOI given, and none found for title: FixedEffectModels.jl [software]
- No DOI given, and none found for title: TimeSeriesRecipes
- No DOI given, and none found for title: DataFramesMeta.jl [software]
- No DOI given, and none found for title: SplitApplyCombine.jl
- No DOI given, and none found for title: dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation
- No DOI given, and none found for title: TidierData.jl [software]
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Douglass.jl [software]
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Data Analysis for Business, Economics, and Policy

❌ MISSING DOIs

- 10.2139/ssrn.3602409 may be a valid DOI for title: The Influence of Hidden Researcher Decisions in Ap...
- 10.1257/jel.37.2.633 may be a valid DOI for title: The numerical reliability of econometric software

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

⚠️ Wordcount for paper.tex is 1783

🔴 Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[editorialbot]

License info:

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

[editorialbot]

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

[lucaferranti]

Hi @korenmiklos 👋 and thank you for submitting to JuliaCon proceedings.

I will be the editor handling this submission and this issue is for the review.

Huge thanks to @nilshg and @pdeffebach for volunteering as reviewers 🙏 . To get started you can generate your reviewer checklist by commenting

@editorialbot generate my checklist

on this issue.

As you go through the checklist points, you can leave your comments for the author to address either in this issue or as issues on the software repository. If you do the latter, please make sure to link to this issue too.

If you have any questions at any point, do not hesitate to ping me and ask.

[nilshg]

Review checklist for @nilshg

Conflict of interest

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

Code of Conduct

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

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/codedthinking/Kezdi.jl?
• 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 (@korenmiklos) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

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

Paper format

• Authors: Does the paper.pdf file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Does the paper clearly explain the problem it addresses, its importance to the broader community, the intended audience, and how it connects to existing work in the field?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Content

• Context: is the scientific context motivating the work correctly presented?
• Methodology: is the approach taken in the work justified, presented with enough details and reference to reproduce it?
• Results: are the results presented and compared to approaches with similar goals?