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]: ddtlcm: An R package for overcoming weak separation in Bayesian latent class analysis via tree-regularization #6220
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 |
|
Hey @jamesuanhoro, @larryshamalama this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on. As a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering
as the top of a new comment in this thread. These checklists contain the JOSS requirements ✅ As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines. The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention #6220 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package. We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if any of you require some more time. We can also use EditorialBot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time. Please feel free to ping me (@Nikoleta-v3) if you have any questions/concerns. 😄 🙋🏻 |
@limengbinggz, could you please add the DOI for one of your references? See: #6220 (comment) |
Review checklist for @larryshamalamaConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
Hi @limengbinggz, great software and great method! From one fellow biostats PhD to another, congratulations on your hard work :) Below are my questions/comments, on top of some other quick things that I am opening as issue(s)/PR(s) in your repo 1. Weak Separation and State of the Field
It took me a while to understand what is meant by "weak separation", which is the focal point of this work. Perhaps this is because I am not so familiar with Bayesian tree-based methods... I was initially not sure if using other software that you mentioned (e.g. Minor comment: lines 21, 22: "classes that share proximity to one another in the tree are shrunk towards ancestral classes a priori" Do you think that you can massage this a bit? I'm not sure if I fully understand, but this sentence seems importance since it highlights on a higher level what this method is doing under the food (re: summary bullet point above). 2. 50 burn-in, 100 posterior drawsIn your example, you seem to use 50 burn-in draws and 100 posterior draws. Is that sufficient? As a user, how would I know when the MCMC converges with your software? If I am thinking of conventional MCMC-ing, these seem like low numbers, especially that, in your example, you use 3. Singleton node warningsI am getting many |
Review checklist for @jamesuanhoroConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
Additional notesHello @limengbinggz:
|
Hey @limengbinggz 👋🏻 did you get a chance to look over the comments/issues that the reviewers raised? 😄 |
Thank for for checking in. We are working on incorporating the reviewers' comments into the revision, and will push to the repo when we are ready. Thanks for waiting. |
Thank you for the update! |
Thank you for pointing out. We have added the DOI for the reference. The paper is updated in commit |
@editorialbot generate pdf |
Thank you very much for reviewing the software as well as the methods paper!
As for the sentence regarding how classes are shrunk, we have clarified this point by changing the original sentence into "classes that are closer to one another in the binary tree are encouraged to share more similar profiles, and their profiles are shrunk towards their common ancestral classes \textit{a priori}, with the degree of shrinkage varying across pre-specified item groups defined thematically with clinical significance. "
|
Hi @Nikoleta-v3 @larryshamalama @jamesuanhoro 👋🏻 Thank you both for reviewing our submission and the nice comments! We have responded to all issues. We will appreciate it if you could take a look at our responses and let us know if further improvements are needed. Thank you! |
@larryshamalama @jamesuanhoro 👋🏻 Have you got a chance to review our responses? 😄 @Nikoleta-v3 |
I'm happy with the responses! Thanks for addressing them :) |
Thank you for your reply and all the suggestions! Would you mind completing the checklist once you've got time? Thanks! @larryshamalama |
I'll try to complete my review before Friday.
Sorry for the delay,
James.
…On Mon, Apr 22, 2024, 11:00 Mengbing Li ***@***.***> wrote:
@larryshamalama <https://github.com/larryshamalama> @jamesuanhoro
<https://github.com/jamesuanhoro> 👋🏻 Have you got a chance to review
our responses? 😄 @Nikoleta-v3 <https://github.com/Nikoleta-v3>
I'm happy with the responses! Thanks for addressing them :)
Thank you for your reply and all the suggestions! Would you mind
completing the checklist once you've got time? Thanks! @larryshamalama
<https://github.com/larryshamalama>
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#6220 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AK3XFTD4RFEJPRNUYTDFXOLY6UX3JAVCNFSM6AAAAABBX5OZZWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDANZQGAZDENRVGA>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
done! |
Thank you thank you! |
Done, happy with the responses to my comments :). And completed my checklist. |
Thank you so much!! |
Thank you to both reviewers for your time and efforts! @limengbinggz, please give me one week to also have a final look over the submission, and then we can move forward to the next steps! |
@editorialbot generate pdf |
Submitting author: @limengbinggz (Mengbing Li)
Repository: https://github.com/limengbinggz/ddtlcm
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main
Version: 0.1.2
Editor: @Nikoleta-v3
Reviewers: @jamesuanhoro, @larryshamalama
Archive: Pending
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
@jamesuanhoro & @larryshamalama, 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 @Nikoleta-v3 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 @larryshamalama
📝 Checklist for @jamesuanhoro
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: