[PRE REVIEW]: plotastic: Bridging Plotting and Statistics in Python

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @markur4 (Martin Kuric)
Repository: https://github.com/markur4/plotastic
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 0.1.0
Editor: @rkurchin
Reviewers: @gmrandazzo, @SunnyXu
Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e1e5d9b233aa16ba4916c6faffe4935b"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e1e5d9b233aa16ba4916c6faffe4935b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e1e5d9b233aa16ba4916c6faffe4935b/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e1e5d9b233aa16ba4916c6faffe4935b)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @markur4. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@markur4 if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

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=0.11 s (923.7 files/s, 168343.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          44           1679           2628           4140
SVG                              1              0              0           2671
HTML                            13            294             39           1750
Markdown                         3            257              0           1126
JavaScript                      12            131            221            880
CSS                              4            190             35            780
TeX                              1              5              0             92
reStructuredText                 9             64            106             87
TOML                             1             16             49             69
Jupyter Notebook                 2              0           1285             36
YAML                             2              4              0             36
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
JSON                             7              0              0             16
make                             1              4              7              9
INI                              1              0              0              8
Bourne Shell                     1              7             10              6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           103           2659           4381          11732
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1658

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/ZENODO.7213391 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01026 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03021 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v059.i10 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

seaborn: statistical data visualization
Submitting author: @mwaskom
Handling editor: @lpantano (Active)
Reviewers: @dangeles, @Sara-ShiHo
Similarity score: 0.8491

Pingouin: statistics in Python
Submitting author: @raphaelvallat
Handling editor: @cMadan (Active)
Reviewers: @snastase
Similarity score: 0.8400

Altair: Interactive Statistical Visualizations for Python
Submitting author: @domoritz
Handling editor: @jedbrown (Active)
Reviewers: @dnszafir, @terrytangyuan, @kellieotto
Similarity score: 0.8330

Visualizations with statistical details: The ggstatsplot approach
Submitting author: @IndrajeetPatil
Handling editor: @csoneson (Active)
Reviewers: @njtierney, @kevinrue
Similarity score: 0.8306

The psyplot interactive visualization framework
Submitting author: @Chilipp
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @Fil
Similarity score: 0.8303

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[markur4]

Dear @editorialbot,
I'd like to ask these people to review my software:

• Robrecht Cannoodt
• Giuseppe Marco Randazzo
• Abinash Satapathy
• Pablo Gómez

[markur4]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @markur4, 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

[markur4]

@editorialbot list editors

[editorialbot]

List of JOSS editors

@AJQuinn
@AoifeHughes
@Bisaloo
@Fei-Tao
@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
@Nikoleta-v3
@adi3
@adonath
@ajstewartlang
@arfon
@atrisovic
@bmcfee
@britta-wstnr
@cMadan
@chartgerink
@crsl4
@crvernon
@csoneson
@danasolav
@danielskatz
@dfm
@dhhagan
@diazrenata
@diehlpk
@drvinceknight
@elbeejay
@eloisabentivegna
@emdupre
@fabian-s
@faroit
@fboehm
@fraukewiese
@galessiorob
@gkthiruvathukal
@graciellehigino
@hugoledoux
@ivastar
@jarvist
@jbytecode
@jedbrown
@jgostick
@jmschrei
@jsta
@kellyrowland
@kthyng
@kyleniemeyer
@lpantano
@lucydot
@luizirber
@majensen
@marcosvital
@martinfleis
@matthewfeickert
@mbarzegary
@mbobra
@mstimberg
@observingClouds
@olexandr-konovalov
@oliviaguest
@osorensen
@pdebuyl
@phibeck
@philipcardiff
@pibion
@plaplant
@ppxasjsm
@prashjha
@richardjgowers
@rkurchin
@samhforbes
@sbenthall
@spholmes
@timtroendle
@vissarion
@warrickball
@xuanxu
@zhubonan

[markur4]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

seaborn: statistical data visualization
Submitting author: @mwaskom
Handling editor: @lpantano (Active)
Reviewers: @dangeles, @Sara-ShiHo
Similarity score: 0.8480

Pingouin: statistics in Python
Submitting author: @raphaelvallat
Handling editor: @cMadan (Active)
Reviewers: @snastase
Similarity score: 0.8377

Altair: Interactive Statistical Visualizations for Python
Submitting author: @domoritz
Handling editor: @jedbrown (Active)
Reviewers: @dnszafir, @terrytangyuan, @kellieotto
Similarity score: 0.8291

Visualizations with statistical details: The ggstatsplot approach
Submitting author: @IndrajeetPatil
Handling editor: @csoneson (Active)
Reviewers: @njtierney, @kevinrue
Similarity score: 0.8284

The psyplot interactive visualization framework
Submitting author: @Chilipp
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @Fil
Similarity score: 0.8268

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[markur4]

(Changed path to Fig. 1)
@editorialbot generate pdf

[arfon]

@markur4 – thanks for your submission to JOSS. We're currently managing a large backlog of submissions and the editor most appropriate for your area is already rather busy.

For now, we will need to waitlist this paper and process it as the queue reduces. Thanks for your patience!

[markur4]

@arfon ok, thank you for the information! Looking forward to get feedback :)

[rkurchin]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

✋ I can take this one!

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @rkurchin is now the editor

[rkurchin]

👋 @gmrandazzo, @mwaskom, and @raphaelvallat, would 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

[raphaelvallat]

Hi @rkurchin — I unfortunately have no bandwidth to review the library in the next couple of months. I would be happy to revisit this in late March if you have not found other reviewers by then.

[gmrandazzo]

Hi @rkurchin, I'm in. I'll do my best by the end of Feb at least.

[rkurchin]

@editorialbot add @gmrandazzo as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@gmrandazzo added to the reviewers list!

[rkurchin]

👋 @davismcc and/or @mmrabe, would 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

[mmrabe]

Hi @rkurchin! Thanks for considering me as a reviewer. I'm currently relocating to a different institution and therefore won't be able to review until approx. mid-February. Sorry!

[rkurchin]

👋 @SunnyXu and/or @BernhardClemm, would 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

[SunnyXu]

@rkurchin Thanks for considering me as a reviewer. Please count me in. I will try my best to get back by the end of February.

[rkurchin]

@editorialbot add @SunnyXu as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@SunnyXu added to the reviewers list!

[rkurchin]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6304.