[REVIEW]: modelStudio: Interactive Studio with Explanations for ML Predictive Models #1798

whedon · 2019-10-10T09:41:42Z

Submitting author: @hbaniecki (Hubert Baniecki)
Repository: https://github.com/ModelOriented/modelStudio
Version: v0.1.9
Editor: @terrytangyuan
Reviewer: @acolum, @expectopatronum
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3527770

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9eec8c9d1969fbd44b3ea438a74af911"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9eec8c9d1969fbd44b3ea438a74af911/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9eec8c9d1969fbd44b3ea438a74af911/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9eec8c9d1969fbd44b3ea438a74af911)

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

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

Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
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 @terrytangyuan know.

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨

Review checklist for @acolum

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 (@hbaniecki) 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

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 @expectopatronum

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 (@hbaniecki) 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

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?

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

whedon · 2019-10-10T09:41:45Z

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

⭐ Important ⭐

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:

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

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 · 2019-10-10T09:41:46Z

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon · 2019-10-10T09:42:16Z

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

hbaniecki · 2019-10-10T11:14:59Z

Great! I am aware that i need to fix paper.bib file to properly code references. I will probably shorten the example. Then Figure 1 should fit one page earlier (same with Figure 2).

hbaniecki · 2019-10-16T22:51:31Z

@expectopatronum

acolum · 2019-10-18T04:14:58Z

Everything in the software and documentation looks good, but in the paper, there's some spelling, grammar, and citation errors.

hbaniecki · 2019-10-19T16:28:03Z

@whedon generate pdf

whedon · 2019-10-19T16:28:06Z

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon · 2019-10-19T16:28:35Z

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

hbaniecki · 2019-10-19T16:41:28Z

@whedon generate pdf

whedon · 2019-10-19T16:41:30Z

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon · 2019-10-19T16:42:03Z

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

acolum · 2019-10-20T18:42:04Z

The references and citations look great, but I'm still noticing a few spelling errors in the first paragraph under "Introduction" and the paragraph under "Conclusions."

expectopatronum · 2019-10-21T08:09:25Z

Yes, I also found several typos / missing articles. I marked them in the PDF: 10.21105.joss.01798_typos.pdf

hbaniecki · 2019-10-21T15:18:43Z

@whedon generate pdf

whedon · 2019-10-21T15:18:45Z

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon · 2019-10-21T15:19:29Z

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

hbaniecki · 2019-10-22T19:30:57Z

@whedon generate pdf

whedon · 2019-10-22T19:30:59Z

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon · 2019-10-22T19:31:30Z

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

hbaniecki · 2019-10-22T19:38:01Z

@whedon generate pdf

whedon · 2019-10-22T19:38:03Z

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon · 2019-10-22T19:38:33Z

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

hbaniecki · 2019-10-22T19:39:09Z

Hopefully it is clean now.

kyleniemeyer · 2019-11-05T16:48:09Z

@whedon generate pdf

whedon · 2019-11-05T16:52:37Z

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon · 2019-11-05T16:53:28Z

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

kyleniemeyer · 2019-11-05T17:08:02Z

@hbaniecki sorry, one last fix I noticed when reviewing: ModelOriented/modelStudio#33

hbaniecki · 2019-11-05T17:34:31Z

@kyleniemeyer np. I merged.

kyleniemeyer · 2019-11-05T17:55:33Z

@whedon generate pdf

whedon · 2019-11-05T17:55:36Z

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon · 2019-11-05T17:56:09Z

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

kyleniemeyer · 2019-11-05T18:04:41Z

@whedon accept

whedon · 2019-11-05T18:04:44Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

kyleniemeyer · 2019-11-05T18:20:48Z

@whedon accept

whedon · 2019-11-05T18:20:51Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon · 2019-11-05T18:21:29Z


OK DOIs

- 10.18653/v1/n16-3020 is OK
- 10.32614/RJ-2018-072 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01444 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00786 is OK
- 10.32614/rj-2017-016 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon · 2019-11-05T18:21:33Z

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#1090

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#1090, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

kyleniemeyer · 2019-11-05T18:23:54Z

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon · 2019-11-05T18:23:57Z

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

whedon · 2019-11-05T18:24:45Z

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

whedon · 2019-11-05T18:24:46Z

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.01798 joss-papers#1091
Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01798
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

kyleniemeyer · 2019-11-05T18:30:55Z

Congrats @hbaniecki on your article's publication in JOSS! Many thanks to @acolum and @expectopatronum for reviewing this, and @terrytangyuan for editing.

whedon · 2019-11-05T18:30:59Z

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01798/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01798)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01798">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01798/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01798/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01798

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

hbaniecki · 2019-11-05T18:46:44Z

wow even after so many reviews i can see a typo. @kyleniemeyer is it possible to fix the paper after the publication?

kyleniemeyer · 2019-11-05T19:01:07Z

Oh no! Um, I think so. Can you fix the source file and let us know? (@arfon?)

hbaniecki · 2019-11-05T19:06:56Z

I feel ashamed but hope that it can be updated. Fixed paper.md.

arfon · 2019-11-05T19:21:39Z

Oh no! Um, I think so. Can you fix the source file and let us know? (@arfon?)

No problem. Paper updated based on the latest paper.md in master. FWIW, the new PDF might not show up for a few hours as there's caching in place for the PDFs on the JOSS site.

whedon added the review label Oct 10, 2019

whedon assigned terrytangyuan Oct 10, 2019

whedon mentioned this issue Oct 10, 2019

[PRE REVIEW]: modelStudio: Interactive Studio with Explanations for ML Predictive Models #1788

Closed

whedon assigned acolum Oct 11, 2019

whedon assigned expectopatronum Oct 17, 2019

expectopatronum mentioned this issue Oct 23, 2019

Missing parts in documentation ModelOriented/modelStudio#28

Closed

whedon added the accepted label Nov 5, 2019

kyleniemeyer closed this as completed Nov 5, 2019

whedon added published Papers published in JOSS recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. labels Mar 2, 2020

editorialbot mentioned this issue Jan 27, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: ReLax: Efficient and Scalable Recourse Explanation Benchmarking using JAX #6289

Closed

editorialbot mentioned this issue Feb 17, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: Contextualized: Heterogeneous Modeling Toolbox #6365

Closed

[REVIEW]: modelStudio: Interactive Studio with Explanations for ML Predictive Models #1798

[REVIEW]: modelStudio: Interactive Studio with Explanations for ML Predictive Models #1798

Comments

whedon commented Oct 10, 2019 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Review checklist for @acolum

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @expectopatronum

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

whedon commented Oct 10, 2019

whedon commented Oct 10, 2019

whedon commented Oct 10, 2019

hbaniecki commented Oct 10, 2019

hbaniecki commented Oct 16, 2019

acolum commented Oct 18, 2019

hbaniecki commented Oct 19, 2019

whedon commented Oct 19, 2019

whedon commented Oct 19, 2019

hbaniecki commented Oct 19, 2019

whedon commented Oct 19, 2019

whedon commented Oct 19, 2019

acolum commented Oct 20, 2019

expectopatronum commented Oct 21, 2019

hbaniecki commented Oct 21, 2019

whedon commented Oct 21, 2019

whedon commented Oct 21, 2019

hbaniecki commented Oct 22, 2019

whedon commented Oct 22, 2019

whedon commented Oct 22, 2019

hbaniecki commented Oct 22, 2019

whedon commented Oct 22, 2019

whedon commented Oct 22, 2019

hbaniecki commented Oct 22, 2019

kyleniemeyer commented Nov 5, 2019

whedon commented Nov 5, 2019

whedon commented Nov 5, 2019

kyleniemeyer commented Nov 5, 2019

hbaniecki commented Nov 5, 2019

kyleniemeyer commented Nov 5, 2019

whedon commented Nov 5, 2019

whedon commented Nov 5, 2019

kyleniemeyer commented Nov 5, 2019

whedon commented Nov 5, 2019

kyleniemeyer commented Nov 5, 2019

whedon commented Nov 5, 2019

whedon commented Nov 5, 2019

whedon commented Nov 5, 2019

kyleniemeyer commented Nov 5, 2019

whedon commented Nov 5, 2019

whedon commented Nov 5, 2019

whedon commented Nov 5, 2019

kyleniemeyer commented Nov 5, 2019

whedon commented Nov 5, 2019

hbaniecki commented Nov 5, 2019

kyleniemeyer commented Nov 5, 2019

hbaniecki commented Nov 5, 2019

arfon commented Nov 5, 2019

whedon commented Oct 10, 2019 •

edited

Loading