-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 36
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
[PRE REVIEW]: Nashpy: A Python library for the computation of Nash equilibria #761
Comments
|
👋 @labarba - the submitting author suggested you as the handling editor. |
@drvinceknight In several places (repo, docs), you have a note like "to do sophisticated equilibria computation you should use gambit" — could you explain how this software, which you say computes equilibria in 2-player games only, would be useful in a research scenario? |
After inspecting the software repository and the documentation, I get the clear impression that this package has more of a pedagogical value than a research application. You recently reviewed one of our first submissions to JOSE (thanks!) ... that software originally came to JOSS—have a look at the pre-review discussion: #212 |
I actually was hesitating in my choice for this one: I'll happily resubmit this over to JOSE :) |
👍 I do think you should include a couple of worked-out examples, in that case. For JOSE, one thing we want is to make it easier for someone else to adopt the software/materials, or for someone to use them for self-learning. Worked examples are important for that. |
Yup of course, I'm at a conference at the moment but will reshape the paper for JOSE. In terms of worked examples, do you mean in A thought: I've actually used Nashpy for a game theory course which uses software in a lot of other ways as well that I was thinking as writing up as a paper for JOSE also. (Use of gh-pages as content delivery, heavy reliability on jupyter notebooks with a testing framework, bespoke static site generator, as well as sphinx backed documentation of "how to lead the course".) My intent is that the paper on Nashpy and the course would not be the same. |
I have submitted this to JOSE so am closing this. Thanks 👍 |
Dear editors, I would like to un-"withdraw" this paper, please let me know if it's simpler if I were to resubmit it perhaps? This follows a discussion at JOSE openjournals/jose-reviews#18 were I believe it has become clear that a paper about this software library is not within the scope of JOSE. I apologise for the confusion/mistake. @labarba regarding your queries prior to withdrawal:
I have modified the paper to hopefully make this clearer, the following is now included:
I don't believe that there being another piece of software that has the same functionality precludes from publication in JOSS but I might be mistaken. EDIT: I note for example http://joss.theoj.org/papers/0cc2d656d8a02a84e0cde905207820d7 which has the same functionality as https://github.com/marcharper/python-ternary and http://joss.theoj.org/papers/225837fff5f6f153660cd05044cd4267 which has the same functionality as http://ciw.readthedocs.io/ and http://simpy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ (I've picked out two papers from my own areas of expertise there :)). Apologies again for the confusion and extra work that has resulted. |
OK, thanks for the heads up @drvinceknight. We should be able to work with this original submission. |
@whedon generate pdf |
|
@drvinceknight - looks like some of the LaTeX formatting is a little wonky in the compiled PDF ☝️. Could you try and fix that? If you make a change to your |
Sorry for the late reply @arfon, I've had a week's leave. Thanks for taking a look at this :) Regenerating now 👍 |
@whedon generate pdf |
|
That's looking good to me, let me know if there's anything else I should/could do at this stage. |
Hi @drvinceknight - things are pretty busy at JOSS right now (close to 100 submissions on the go!) so we're a little slow getting to things. Can you look at this list of potential reviewers and suggest a few people that might be suitable to review your package? |
No problem at all, I completely understand: zero pressure/impatience on my side. Looking through the list I'd suggest https://github.com/fil looks like a good fit, otherwise https://github.com/jordigh or https://github.com/nicoguaro perhaps. Thank you again to all the editors for your efforts/work on this journal. |
@labarba I'm in |
OK, the reviewer is @Fil |
Thanks, @Fil — I'm waiting for a reply from a possible second reviewer, then I'll start the review! |
@whedon add @alex-konovalov as reviewer |
OK, @alex-konovalov is now a reviewer |
@whedon start review |
Hmm ... @arfon, our loyal bot |
@whedon commands |
Here are some things you can ask me to do:
|
@whedon start review |
1 similar comment
@whedon start review |
OK, I've started the review over in #904. Feel free to close this issue now! |
Submitting author: @drvinceknight (Vincent Knight)
Repository: https://github.com/drvinceknight/Nashpy
Version: v0.0.14
Editor: @labarba
Reviewers: @Fil, @alex-konovalov
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @drvinceknight. The JOSS editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.
@drvinceknight if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission.
Editor instructions
The JOSS submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: