[REVIEW]: OpenSkill: A faster asymmetric multi-team, multiplayer rating system

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @vivekjoshy (Vivek Joshy)
Repository: https://github.com/OpenDebates/openskill.py
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main
Version: v5.1.0
Editor: @vissarion
Reviewers: @Naeemkh, @matt-graham
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8280051

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c9c34dc845852b43e0884cf107cfcf84"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c9c34dc845852b43e0884cf107cfcf84/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c9c34dc845852b43e0884cf107cfcf84/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c9c34dc845852b43e0884cf107cfcf84)

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

@Naeemkh & @matt-graham, 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:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

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

📝 Checklist for @matt-graham

[editorialbot]

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:

@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=0.11 s (814.8 files/s, 140424.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          28           1737           1647           6565
JSON                             7              0              0            624
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            213            526
reStructuredText                20           1083           1064            391
Markdown                        10            111              0            318
YAML                             6             16             10            210
TOML                             2             11              0            148
CSS                              1             12              7             71
TeX                              2              1              0             61
INI                              1              5              0             56
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
HTML                             3              4              4             20
JavaScript                       1              1              0             16
make                             1              4              7              9
SVG                              3              0              0              6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            87           2993           2953           9047
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 364

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107828 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[Naeemkh]

Review checklist for @Naeemkh

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 https://github.com/OpenDebates/openskill.py?
• 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 (@vivekjoshy) 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
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• 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?

[Naeemkh]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[Naeemkh]

Hello @vivekjoshy, I was unable to generate the paper. Could you please take a look? (cc: @vissarion)

[vivekjoshy]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[vivekjoshy]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @vivekjoshy, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

[vivekjoshy]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[Naeemkh]

Hello @vivekjoshy, please add the Open Journals GitHub Action to the package repository, either on the main branch or any other branch? This will help us see if the paper is generated successfully. For your reference, here are the guidelines: JOSS Documentation. Thank you.

[vivekjoshy]

@Naeemkh it's already set to generate on each commit as seen here:

https://github.com/OpenDebates/openskill.py/actions/runs/5966197114
https://github.com/OpenDebates/openskill.py/blob/main/.github/workflows/draft-pdf.yml

[Naeemkh]

@vivekjoshy, great. I will download the paper from your actions.

[matt-graham]

Review checklist for @matt-graham

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 https://github.com/OpenDebates/openskill.py?
• 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 (@vivekjoshy) 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
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• 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?

[xuanxu]

When editorialbot is trying to clone the repository this error message is generated:

Error downloading benchmark/data/chess.csv 
Error downloading benchmark/data/overwatch.jsonl
Error downloading benchmark/data/pubg.7z

batch response: This repository is over its data quota. 
Account responsible for LFS bandwidth should purchase more data packs to restore access.

[vivekjoshy]

@xuanxu There should be pointer files for the benchmarks if you use Git LFS. Unfortunately, the repo gets cloned quite a lot and there would be no point in topping up the data quota. I could always just delete the benchmark files or move it out to Kaggle since they're so large. That would also solve the issue.

[Naeemkh]

@xuanxu There should be pointer files for the benchmarks if you use Git LFS. Unfortunately, the repo gets cloned quite a lot and there would be no point in topping up the data quota. I could always just delete the benchmark files or move it out to Kaggle since they're so large. That would also solve the issue.

@vivekjoshy, Please let me know where I can download the benchmark data.

[vivekjoshy]

@Naeemkh I've uploaded the data files for Draw and Win benchmarks here:

https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/daegontaven/overwatch-dataset
https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/daegontaven/chess-dataset

It is currently not documented that the benchmark for Large, has an error in it. I've uploaded a corrected version of the benchmarks for the large dataset (pubg) here instead:

https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/daegontaven/processed-pubg

There is also an online notebook that can be viewed for it that uses the corrected dataset (please see version 11 for a correct implementation):

https://www.kaggle.com/code/daegontaven/openskill-benchmarks/notebook?scriptVersionId=142972446

[vissarion]

Hi, @Naeemkh, @matt-graham could you please provide us with an update on the progress of this review?

[vivekjoshy]

@vissarion No changes have been made to the library code (which is what is included in the release files).

The version that is tagged is v5.1.0 at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8280051.

[vissarion]

Thanks @vivekjoshy. Please update the title of the zenodo arxiv to match the title of the submitted paper.

[vivekjoshy]

@vissarion Done!

[vissarion]

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.8280051 as archive

[editorialbot]

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.8280051

[vissarion]

@editorialbot set v5.1.0 as version

[editorialbot]

Done! version is now v5.1.0

[vissarion]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107828 is OK
- 10.1145/1852102.1852106 is OK
- 10.1080/02664760120059219 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10359600 is OK
- 10.1145/1553374.1553423 is OK
- 10.1093/biomet/39.3-4.324 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👋 @openjournals/dsais-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#4887, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[arfon]

@editorialbot accept

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

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

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Joshy
  given-names: Vivek
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2443-8827"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8280051
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Joshy
    given-names: Vivek
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2443-8827"
  date-published: 2024-01-09
  doi: 10.21105/joss.05901
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 93
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 5901
  title: "OpenSkill: A faster asymmetric multi-team, multiplayer rating
    system"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05901"
  volume: 9
title: "OpenSkill: A faster asymmetric multi-team, multiplayer rating
  system"

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.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

[editorialbot]

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

[editorialbot]

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

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.05901 joss-papers#4891
1. Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05901
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

[vivekjoshy]

Yaay! Thank you to everyone involved in reviewing this paper and the library. A pleasure working with you all!

[arfon]

@Naeemkh, @matt-graham – many thanks for your reviews here and to @vissarion for editing this submission! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you ✨

@vivekjoshy – your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS ⚡🚀💥

[editorialbot]

🎉🎉🎉 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.05901/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05901)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05901">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05901/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05901/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05901

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:

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

[vivekjoshy]

@editorialbot set https://github.com/vivekjoshy/openskill.py as repository

[editorialbot]

I'm sorry @vivekjoshy, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do.

[vivekjoshy]

@editorialbot ping track-eic

[editorialbot]

I'm sorry @vivekjoshy, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do.

[vivekjoshy]

Can someone update this repository in the published DOI?

[vissarion]

@vivekjoshy I do not know if you can do this after publication.
I do not know if this satisfies you but the link https://github.com/OpenDebates/openskill.py resolves to https://github.com/vivekjoshy/openskill.py

[vissarion]

@vivekjoshy I do not know if you can do this after publication. I do not know if this satisfies you but the link https://github.com/OpenDebates/openskill.py resolves to https://github.com/vivekjoshy/openskill.py

It should be possible to change the metadata of the paper after publication, right @arfon ?