[PRE REVIEW]: Strategy-first Programming Resources: Teaching Chemistry Using Python

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @alanmlewis (Alan M. Lewis)
Repository: https://github.com/alanmlewis/ProgrammingforChem
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): jose
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: Pending
Reviewers: Pending
Managing EiC: Lorena Barba

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/d945f3607368835ceab400ba307118d8"><img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/d945f3607368835ceab400ba307118d8/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/d945f3607368835ceab400ba307118d8/status.svg)](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/d945f3607368835ceab400ba307118d8)

Author instructions

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

@alanmlewis 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 JOSE 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]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00665 is OK
- 10.21105/jose.00192 is OK
- 10.1007/BF00508893 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00881 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00535 is OK
- 10.1007/BF01339530 is OK
- 10.1007/s10956-026-10301-z is OK
- 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00244 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aap9112 is OK
- 10.1021/ci100050t is OK
- 10.21105/jose.00299 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- None

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Repository Analysis Report

Code breakdown

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.98  T=0.17 s (372.2 files/s, 394530.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSV                             18              2              0          40538
Text                            10              1              0          19641
Jupyter Notebook                 6              0           4137           1596
Python                          24            248            280            884
TeX                              1             10              0            177
Markdown                         2             95              0            172
YAML                             1              1              4             25
DOS Batch                        1              0              0             12
Arduino Sketch                   1              2              0              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            64            359           4421          63054
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit Count by Author

51	Alan M. Lewis
    12	Alan M Lewis
     2	David Pugh

Repository History

Repository age: First commit on July 15, 2024

Code distribution (top 3 48-hour windows):

Period	Insertions	% of Total	Signal	View Changes
Feb 02, 2026 - Feb 04, 2026	691140	90.0%	🔴	View diff
Jan 14, 2025 - Jan 16, 2025	40336	5.3%	🟢	View diff
May 03, 2025 - May 05, 2025	19509	2.5%	🟢	View diff

GitHub Activity Metrics

Metric	Count
GitHub stars	1
Forks	1
GitHub contributors	2
Releases	0
Total issues	0
Total pull requests	1
Unique commenters/reviewers (excluding authors)	0

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

🚨 Wordcount for paper.md is 2529

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

🔴 Failed to discover a State of the field section in paper

🔴 Failed to discover a Software design section in paper

🔴 Failed to discover a Research impact statement section in paper

🔴 Failed to discover an AI usage disclosure section in paper

[editorialbot]

License info:

🔴 Failed to discover a valid open source license

[editorialbot]

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

[labarba]

hi @alanmlewis 👋 – it looks like your repository does not contain an open-source license for the materials. This is a JOSE requirement. The pre-review checks also show 90% of insertions within a 48-hr period in February, while the paper mentions that the materials were developed over the last three years. Can you explain the discrepancy? I also note that a large fraction of the content is CSV files. Please consider whether large data files can be hosted elsewhere, since normally these are not version-controlled, to make your repository leaner, and bear in mind that the review cannot extend to the data.

[alanmlewis]

Hi Lorena,

Apologies for this oversight; I have now added an open-source license.

The discrepancy is simply due to disorganisation on my part. I have developed the material over the last three years, but only organised it together into a single repository in February. If you need some evidence of this, the powerpoints were initially developed in Google Drive, so I could try to provide some of the Google history to demonstrate the period of development. Going forward, I intend to keep the repository up-to-date, now that I have actually put everything in the same place.

Do you have any suggestions for best practice on where to store the data files? I can remove the data from the jose review branch easily. Unfortunately I will need to do a phased removal of the data files in the main branch, as some of the notebooks load those files directly from the github repository, and I don't want to break these for students who already have copies of those notebooks.

Suggested reviewers: Shiv Upadhyay, Jessica Nash, Andrew McCluskey.

[ifilot]

✋I can review this