Joss-reviews: [REVIEW]: JASP for Audit: Bayesian Tools for the Auditing Practice

[whedon]

Submitting author: @koenderks (Koen Derks)
Repository: https://github.com/koenderks/jasp-desktop
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @drvinceknight
Reviewer: @trstewart212 , @fgeertman
Archive: Pending

:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9e302b827673fc19c8eb4cb92c2eacbb"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9e302b827673fc19c8eb4cb92c2eacbb/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9e302b827673fc19c8eb4cb92c2eacbb/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9e302b827673fc19c8eb4cb92c2eacbb)

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

@trstewart212 & @fgeertman, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @drvinceknight 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 ✨

Review checklist for @trstewart212

Conflict of interest

• [x] 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

• [x] 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 repository url?
• [ ] 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 (@koenderks) 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

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: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [ ] 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?

Review checklist for @fgeertman

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 repository url?
• [ ] 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 (@koenderks) 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

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: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [ ] 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?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @trstewart212 , @fgeertman it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper :tada:.

:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

:star: Important :star:

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

1. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

PDF failed to compile for issue #2733 with the following error:

Can't find any papers to compile :-(

[drvinceknight]

@koenderks can you take a look at the fact that the pdf cannot compile: let me know if I can assist with using whedon.

[koenderks]

@drvinceknight Can this be the result of the fact that whedon selects the default branch from the repository? I believe this has also happened in the pre-review stage. The branch that the submission is located at is the JfA-JOSS branch located at https://github.com/koenderks/jasp-desktop/tree/JfA-JOSS.

If this is the case, I believe that

@whedon generate pdf from branch JfA-JOSS

will solve the issue.

[drvinceknight]

@whedon generate pdf from branch JfA-JOSS

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch JfA-JOSS. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[drvinceknight]

If this is the case, I believe that

@whedon generate pdf from branch JfA-JOSS

will solve the issue.

Thanks @koenderks! That's done the trick. Fyi you can run those whedon commands as well :)

[kthyng]

Hi @trstewart212 , @fgeertman! Any updates on how your reviews are coming along?

[fgeertman]

Hi, I did not start yet. Is on the planning for next week.

Apologies for the delay

Regards,

Ferry

From: Kristen Thyng [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 4:20 PM
To: openjournals/joss-reviews
Cc: Ferry Geertman; Mention
Subject: Re: [openjournals/joss-reviews] [REVIEW]: JASP for Audit: Bayesian Tools for the Auditing Practice (#2733)

Hi @trstewart212https://github.com/trstewart212 , @fgeertmanhttps://github.com/fgeertman! Any updates on how your reviews are coming along?

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/2733#issuecomment-724770125, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ARCUGPRGNC5E3VXQQJ6JJ7DSPFKZHANCNFSM4SJ3QIDA.

[trstewart212]

Same here. Please understand that I am not a regular GitHub user and may need some technical assistance. As I explained to Vince Knight and others, I come at this more from the auditing/statistical than the software perspective.

On Nov 10, 2020, at 11:10, fgeertman [e-mail] wrote:

Hi, I did not start yet. Is on the planning for next week.

Apologies for the delay

Regards,

Ferry

From: Kristen Thyng [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 4:20 PM
To: openjournals/joss-reviews
Cc: Ferry Geertman; Mention
Subject: Re: [openjournals/joss-reviews] [REVIEW]: JASP for Audit: Bayesian Tools for the Auditing Practice (#2733)

Hi @trstewart212https://github.com/trstewart212 , @fgeertmanhttps://github.com/fgeertman! Any updates on how your reviews are coming along?

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/2733#issuecomment-724770125, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ARCUGPRGNC5E3VXQQJ6JJ7DSPFKZHANCNFSM4SJ3QIDA.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/2733#issuecomment-724802325, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQ3LZBDP6PRWILKNFHDY7TDSPFQVXANCNFSM4SJ3QIDA.

[kthyng]

@trstewart212 Understood. @drvinceknight and others (including me) are happy to make it as smooth as possible for you. I recommend reading through the JOSS reviewer guidelines. Then, you can use the checklist in this review issue to guide your review process. As you identify issues to bring up, we ask you to open issues in the software repo itself and connect them with this review issue by writing something at the top of each issue like "This issue is related to the review issue".

@koenderks When I checked your repo for the above comment, I noticed that issues aren't available for your software. You'll need to go into the settings for your software repo and check a box to turn issues on.

[drvinceknight]

Just to echo what @kthyng said: I'd be delighted to assist @trstewart212. Please let me know what I can do (if you'd like to arrange a short video chat we can do that).

[trstewart212]

A video chat would be very helpful in getting me going.
Thanks,
Trevor

Trevor Stewart

On Nov 11, 2020, at 04:42, Vince Knight [e-mail] wrote:

Just to echo what @kthyng https://github.com/kthyng said: I'd be delighted to assist @trstewart212 https://github.com/trstewart212. Please let me know what I can do (if you'd like to arrange a short video chat we can do that).

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/2733#issuecomment-725318243, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQ3LZBG4I3LGBPDUQEOUT63SPJL7DANCNFSM4SJ3QIDA.

[drvinceknight]

I'll email you to arrange a time :)