New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[REVIEW]: einprot: flexible, easy-to-use, reproducible workflows for statistical analysis of quantitative proteomics data #5750
Comments
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:
For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
|
|
Wordcount for |
|
Review checklist for @ByrumLabConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
Review checklist for @AnthonyOfSeattleConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
Hi @csoneson, thank you for the nice proteomics software package. The code is easy to install and customize analysis pipelines, which will be valuable as new mass spec methods arise. The generation of the full reports for each project enhances reproducibility for data sharing. I have a couple of minor comments that may help new users.
|
Thanks @ByrumLab!
|
For completeness, I've added an FAQ section to the vignette, and included a note about the motivation for the use of the SingleCellExperiment - thanks @ByrumLab for raising this point! |
Hi @csoneson, congrats on this well built and complete R package. It is clear that this represents a significant effort born out of years performing fundamental analyses in quantitative proteomics. I believe it will see use both in traditional proteomics labs, who may be looking to automate their initial analyses of data, as well as will in labs taking their first steps into proteomics, who may benefit from the structured approach. Looking into the code, I can see a github action checking both PRs and merges, which is great. To confirm all dependencies are listed, I installed the package into a clean docker image and ran tests. Everything worked just as expected. It was also good to see multiple types of user input checks at the start of functions, which appear to have feedback for users about types and errors. The package can read the output from multiple types of analysis software into the same Bioconductor object, and reports appear logically laid out and uniform in structure. Overall, I like the consistency of the design of the API. For most of the questions I had about the package, I was able to find the answers in vignette. Seems like there are a lot of customizations that individuals can specify, and you guide them through their options quite thoroughly. I was particularly interested in diving into the statistical portion of the code. From what I can see, the code has out of the box support for single factor designs with a batch term. If a user has a mutlifactor design, say
Are additional columns being included in statistical test as well? Could a quick answer to that question be stated in the vignette, maybe with an explicit statement about the best way to handle multi-factor designs like this? I expect that there will be some users who will benefit from the protocol being explicitly laid out. In addition, I see two main packages for doing statistical test, both of which seem like good additions. However, I don't see anything in the vignette about choosing between the options. I believe you will have many individuals who come to this as their first look into proteomics, and it would be good from a completeness standpoint to have 1-2 sentences to guide them to a choice. Otherwise they will use the default or guess. Beyond a couple additions to the vignette, I have no further requests. Addendum: After another quick read through, I noticed the parameter |
@AnthonyOfSeattle Thanks for your thorough review and constructive comments! I have made additions to the vignette to adress them, summarized in this PR. Below are responses to your comments:
Yes, that would be one way (especially if the treatment effect may be gender-specific). Another option could be to consider gender as the batch effect (if treatment is the main factor of interest, and no interaction is expected).
No, additional columns are not included in the statistical test, but they are propagated to the final SCE. I have added a sentence about this in the vignette, as well as some tips for multi-factor and more complex designs. For the current version of einprot, we made a conscious choice to make the setup of the statistical testing easy (specifically, to not require the explicit specification of a design matrix and contrasts), while attempting to still cover a reasonable range of use cases.
I added a section about this in the FAQ part in the end of the vignette.
The main advantage of fitting a single model (
Thank you - I have standardized the defaults across the different functions (it's now |
Thank you so much, @AnthonyOfSeattle and @ByrumLab, for the thorough reviews! @csoneson - the reviewers have recommended the submission for publication. There are a few more steps before we finalize the publication. |
@editorialbot commands |
Hello @fboehm, here are the things you can ask me to do:
|
Post-Review Checklist for Editor and AuthorsAdditional Author Tasks After Review is Complete
Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance
|
@csoneson - I plan to read the manuscript and offer suggestions in by the end of tomorrow. I'll comment in this thread once I've completed the proofreading. |
Thank you, @csoneson ! Something came up for me, so it will be a few days before I can proofread the paper. I apologize for the delay. I'll comment here once I've proofread it. |
Thanks @fboehm, no worries! |
@editorialbot generate pdf |
Thanks @fboehm!
You're right - I have made them lower-case.
I believe it should be two words (based on https://bookdown.org/yihui/rmarkdown/). However, the Markdown should also be capitalized (again, based on the same webpage) I have fixed these two points 🙂 |
Thanks so much, @csoneson! |
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.8298657 as archive |
Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.8298657 |
@editorialbot set v0.7.7 as version |
Done! version is now v0.7.7 |
@editorialbot generate pdf |
@editorialbot check references |
|
@editorialbot recommend-accept |
|
|
👋 @openjournals/bcm-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published. Check final proof 👉📄 Download article If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#4537, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command |
@csoneson I am the AEiC on this track and here to help process the last steps. I have check this review, the paper, your repository, and also the archive. All seems in order, so I will now proceed to accept this work in JOSS. |
@editorialbot accept |
|
Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository. If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file. You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here: CITATION.cff
If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation. |
🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘 |
🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨 Here's what you must now do:
Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team... |
@csoneson congratulations on this JOSS publication! Thanks for editing @fboehm ! And a special thanks to the reviewers: @AnthonyOfSeattle, @ByrumLab !! |
🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉 If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:
This is how it will look in your documentation: We need your help! The 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:
|
Thank you @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman! I get a 404 on the DOI link (https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05750), both directly and from the list of papers on the website. Should it resolve by itself, or do you think there's an issue? Thanks! |
@csoneson I closed this issue after I noticed the DOI resolving. Sometimes one needs to refresh the page. (and in some cases in takes longer for me on Firefox). If this remains an issue we can investigate a bit more. It does resolve still/again for me now. |
Interesting - yes, I guess a cache issue or something (I refreshed several times, and tried in different windows). In an incognito session, it resolves for me as well 🙂 Sorry for the noise, and thanks again! |
Submitting author: @csoneson (Charlotte Soneson)
Repository: https://github.com/fmicompbio/einprot
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss
Version: v0.7.7
Editor: @fboehm
Reviewers: @AnthonyOfSeattle, @ByrumLab
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8298657
Status
Status badge code:
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
@AnthonyOfSeattle & @ByrumLab, 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:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @fboehm 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 @ByrumLab
📝 Checklist for @AnthonyOfSeattle
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: