[PRE REVIEW]: APGG - A Modular C++ Framework for Asymmetric Public Goods Games

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @jhstaudacher (Jochen Staudacher)
Repository: https://github.com/APGG-Lab/APGG
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.1.0
Editor: @Nikoleta-v3
Reviewers: @ieyjzhou, @mstimberg
Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4558a91d3a77910764ab49cd2db1a84f"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4558a91d3a77910764ab49cd2db1a84f/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4558a91d3a77910764ab49cd2db1a84f/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4558a91d3a77910764ab49cd2db1a84f)

Author instructions

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

@jhstaudacher if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

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 (1396.8 files/s, 82013.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C++                             29            417             95           1506
C/C++ Header                    30            157             11            644
Python                           5            155             28            437
XML                              2              0              0            337
Markdown                         2             42              0            131
TeX                              1              1              0            104
make                             1             18              2             25
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            70            790            136           3184
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 2049

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a valid open source license

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1007/s00355-012-0658-2 may be a valid DOI for title: Public goods provision by asymmetric agents: experimental evidence
- 10.1038/s41598-020-79731-y may be a valid DOI for title: Inclusive groups can avoid the tragedy of the commons
- 10.7551/ecal_a_016 may be a valid DOI for title: MABE (modular agent based evolver): A framework for digital evolution research
- 10.1038/415137a may be a valid DOI for title: Altruistic punishment in humans
- 10.1088/1478-3975/12/4/046005 may be a valid DOI for title: Punishment in public goods games leads to meta-stable phase transitions and hysteresis
- 10.1007/s00265-006-0305-y may be a valid DOI for title: Rank-related partner choice in the fission–fusion society of the spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta)
- 10.1038/ismej.2017.69 may be a valid DOI for title: Experimental evolution and the dynamics of adaptation and genome evolution in microbial populations

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[arfon]

@editorialbot query scope

@jhstaudacher – due to the relatively small size of this code, the editors will now discuss if it meets the substantial scholarly effort criterion for review by JOSS. We should get back to you sometime next week.

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[danielskatz]

@jhstaudacher - note that JOSS requires reviewed software to have an OSI-approved license (see https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#submission-requirements), which your software doesn't seem to have.

[jhstaudacher]

Thank you very much for your feedback, @danielskatz. Our software APGG is now under GNU General Public License v3.0.

[jhstaudacher]

As for potential reviewers for our paper on APGG, I would hereby like to suggest the following six researchers from your list: stulacy, bramvandijk88, jdreo, StefanKohekUMFERI, CFGrote or ieyjzhou.
Thank you very much for your time spent for our submission to JOSS.

[danielskatz]

@jhstaudacher - the scope query has been successful, though there are some issues with packaging that will probably come up in the review.

[danielskatz]

This will now go on the waiting list until a suitable editor is available

[arfon]

@editorialbot invite @meg-simula as editor

👋 @meg-simula – would you be willing to edit this submission for JOSS?

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[meg-simula]

@arfon Not my field of expertise I'm afraid.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot invite @Nikoleta-v3 as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@Nikoleta-v3 I realize you are handing several other submission, but one seems nearly finished so I was hoping/wondering if you could take on this one which is currently waitlisted. Thanks.

[Nikoleta-v3]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

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

[Nikoleta-v3]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1162/evco.1996.4.2.113 is OK
- 10.1126/science.162.3859.1243 is OK
- 10.1007/s00355-012-0658-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-020-79731-y is OK
- 10.1016/j.plrev.2016.08.015 is OK
- 10.7551/ecal_a_016 is OK
- 10.1038/415137a is OK
- 10.1088/1478-3975/12/4/046005 is OK
- 10.1007/s00265-006-0305-y is OK
- 10.1038/ismej.2017.69 is OK
- 10.13140/RG.2.2.27100.72322/2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[Nikoleta-v3]

Thank you @jhstaudacher

[jhstaudacher]

@Nikoleta-v3 Thank you very much for editing our paper. We added DOIs for all our references in the meantime. All DOIs are now correct.

[jhstaudacher]

@ieyjzhou Thank you very much for your readiness to review our paper.

[Nikoleta-v3]

👋🏻 @raybecker @sylvaticus would either of you be willing to review this submission for 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

The submission I'd like you to review is titled: "APGG - A Modular C++ Framework for Asymmetric Public Goods Games". You can find more information at the top of this Github issue 🆙

Please let me know if you're available 😄 Thank you!

[sylvaticus]

I'm in... which is the expected timing ?

[raybecker]

Thanks @sylvaticus. @Nikoleta-v3, you don't need both of us, correct?

[sylvaticus]

Just to be clear, I'm an economist but experimental and behavioural economics are not my fields, so feel free to drop me out of the list...

[Nikoleta-v3]

I'm in... which is the expected timing ?

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks.

Thanks @sylvaticus. @Nikoleta-v3, you don't need both of us, correct?

That is correct 😃 we already have one reviewer.

Just to be clear, I'm an economist but experimental and behavioural economics are not my fields, so feel free to drop me out of the list...

APGG is a tool for numerical simulations of the public goods game. I believe the submission will benefit from a reviewer that has a good knowledge of C++ and software development more than someone familiar with its game theoretic aspects. Let me know if that sounds good to you :)

And thank you both for your replies 🙏🏻

[sylvaticus]

ok, I leave the task to @raybecker then.. my C++ is a bit rusty.. it's a while I don't use it, as I moved almost everything to Julia nowadays...

Just a few comments/suggestions to the author package @jhstaudacher if I can:

• add a couple of sentences after the logo on what your program does;
• create a proper documentation (there is no link to the "our wiki" page referred in the README);
• linked to the previous point, the code I saw has no comments. In C++ you have tools like Doxygen to help you structure the documentation that you write close to the code as "comment" and automatically extract the API (perhaps even other ones better nowadays). Use them :-) ;
• you shouldn't need to register to download an open source software, check the "release" method;
• on a quick look on the repository I haven't see any unit test. They are really useful, and some people even write first the test and then the implementation !

[jhstaudacher]

@sylvaticus Thank you very much for your efforts and your precious comments and suggestions.

[Nikoleta-v3]

This #4711 (comment) is very helpful! Thank you for your suggestions and for taking the time to look over the submission 😄

[Nikoleta-v3]

@raybecker sorry to ping you again, but do you think you will be able to review this submission after all? 😄

[raybecker]

I've been considering it, because I'm flying to the US right now and will have a lot on my plate until the end of the year. I think I will be too busy and take far too long to review this. Sorry, but I can't do it this time.

[Nikoleta-v3]

Not a problem! Thank you for taking the time to think over it 🙏🏻 😄

[Nikoleta-v3]

👋🏻 @manmeetkaurbaxi & @gabett would either of you be willing to review this submission for 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

The submission I'd like you to review is titled: "APGG - A Modular C++ Framework for Asymmetric Public Goods Games". You can find more information at the top of this Github issue 🆙

Please let me know if you're available 😄 Thank you!

[gabett]

Hi @Nikoleta-v3! Unfortunately, this is not my field of expertise. Sorry for that!

[Nikoleta-v3]

Hey @gabett 👋🏻 thank you very much for your reply!

I realise that this is not your field of expertise. I believe the submission will benefit from a reviewer that has a good knowledge of C++ and software development more than someone familiar with its game theoretic aspects.

Given this, do you think that it could be something you can review? 😄

"No, I rather prefer not to" is a perfectly fine answer!

[Nikoleta-v3]

Hey @MikeLydeamore & @mstimberg would either of you be willing to review this submission for 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

The submission I'd like you to review is titled: "APGG - A Modular C++ Framework for Asymmetric Public Goods Games".
I realise that this submission is not in your field of expertise. However, I believe the submission will benefit from a reviewer that has a good knowledge of C++ and software development more than someone familiar with its game theoretic aspects. You can find more information about the submission at the top of this Github issue 🆙

Please let me know if you're available 😄 Thank you!

[mstimberg]

@Nikoleta-v3 This topic is indeed quite far outside my field of expertise, but if you are happy with a general review of the software/documentation/etc., I'd be happy to help.

[Nikoleta-v3]

That's perfect 🥳 thank you! 🙏🏻

[Nikoleta-v3]

@editorialbot add @mstimberg as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@mstimberg added to the reviewers list!

[Nikoleta-v3]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #4944.