[REVIEW]: RSMTool: a Python Package for facilitating research on automated scoring models about joss-reviews HOT 20 CLOSED

Well, I am delighted to see this. @desilinguist and @aloukina, the new documentation is actually enjoyable to read, with well thought out hyperlinking and walkthroughs describing real user scenarios.

It's much less of a stretch for me to imagine a non-ETS researcher using this tool now, which was the unarticulated heart of my documentation objections before.

I'm glad to hear you're exploring pip/wheel installations and I hope you'll publish wheels or sdist tarballs on PyPi periodically as part of your release cycle. I give this a 👍 and defer to the editors as to when/if/how you should mint a new DOI.

from joss-reviews.

Perfect. Thanks!

@desilinguist - your paper is now accepted into JOSS and you DOI is http://dx.doi.org/10.21105/joss.00033 🎉 🚀 💥

Thanks for the great review @jkahn

from joss-reviews.

Thanks, Jeremy!
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:29 PM Jeremy G. Kahn [email protected]
wrote:

maybe a tentative ✋ I am reviewing this? If nobody else speaks up this
week, I will take it on to do a review next week (July 5-8).

Full disclosure: Nitin (the submitting author) and I are friendly (and see
each other, mostly at conferences, about every 18 months).

I don't know anything about this specific work of his.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#33 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AAJ3kGbjb4QWiBEz_wcVprg2Bh3mYVGOks5qQvG3gaJpZM4JARd3
.

from joss-reviews.

Please see the "available documentation" section in the main README. All
the config files for all four tools format are fully documented.

There's only example, that's true. That's because we expect the "rsmtool"
endpoint to be the most commonly used. We can certainly make that clearer.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 7:12 PM Jeremy G. Kahn [email protected]
wrote:

Undocumented entry points confuse new users

There are at least three different command-line tools (endpoints, in the
Python jargon) that all seem to take the same argument structure (a config
file) but presumably have different formats expected in the config files.
There's exactly one example use, scraped from a Kaggle competition, but it
only uses one of the CLI endpoints (rsmtool); the others (e.g. rsmeval
and rsmcompare) don't have sample usages.

This doesn't help your statement of need much, either.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#33 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AAJ3kGR4VQittBVwyCNcyuewuj-uuqNhks5qTYfcgaJpZM4JARd3
.

from joss-reviews.

/ cc @openjournals/joss-reviewers - would anyone be willing to review this submission?

If you would like to review this submission then please comment on this thread so that others know you're doing a review (so as not to duplicate effort). Something as simple as :hand: I am reviewing this will suffice.

Reviewer instructions

• Please work through the checklist at the start of this issue.
• If you need any further guidance/clarification take a look at the reviewer guidelines here http://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines
• Please make a publication recommendation at the end of your review

Any questions, please ask for help by commenting on this issue! 🚀

from joss-reviews.

maybe a tentative ✋ I am reviewing this? If nobody else speaks up this week, I will take it on to do a review next week (July 5-8).

Full disclosure: Nitin (the submitting author) and I are friendly (and see each other, mostly at conferences, about every 18 months).

I don't know anything about this specific work of his.

from joss-reviews.

Full disclosure: Nitin (the submitting author) and I are friendly (and see each other, mostly at conferences, about every 18 months).

OK that sounds great @jkahn 👍

from joss-reviews.

General checks and references

All the outer formatting looks good.

Might be nice to find a DOI for Loukina 2015 but I can't figure out how to get DOIs from ACLweb.

from joss-reviews.

Statement of need

I'm not 100% clear what the statement of actual need is here. I get that this is a useful tool within the ETS, but I'm not certain about what the contribution of this package is, and who the researchers (outside of the ETS itself) would be that would find this to be a useful tool in hand.

I'm not saying that those researchers don't exist -- I might even be one of them -- but I don't think the statement of need clearly reflects what a imaginary researcher Professor X would use these tools for. Perhaps a tutorial walking through Professor X's thought process would help clarify what problem this solves -- and if the tutorial was part of the documentation, so much the better.

I suspect is meeting >1 need and some researchers may have only a subset of those needs, and that is okay, but those are not clear. (See upcoming comment about multiply-situated work.)

from joss-reviews.

Undocumented entry points confuse new users

There are at least three different command-line tools (endpoints, in the Python jargon) that all seem to take the same argument structure (a config file) but presumably have different formats expected in the config files. There's exactly one example use, scraped from a Kaggle competition, but it only uses one of the CLI endpoints (rsmtool); the others (e.g. rsmeval and rsmcompare) don't have sample usages.

This doesn't help your statement of need much, either.

from joss-reviews.

Separating the pandas.DataFrame manipulator APIs from the input and output formats

As far as I can tell, the format of the input features is also undocumented. I don't have a clear picture of how I might (as an external developer) go about creating the datasets of "features" (a hugely overloaded term, further overloaded in the limited documentation provided here) applied to these competitions. Furthermore, I don't understand from the documentation what aspects of those files are being displayed in the resulting HTML generation.

I wonder if a clear difference between dataframe format and on-disk storage format would clarify things here. (I can imagine:

• a "stored features" form in JSON, documented
• an API specification about the shapes and labels of DataFrame objects for input
• some utilities to lift the stored results to appropriate API inputs
• an API specification about the shapes and labels generated for output
• some utilities (probably notebooks) to combine and display bundled API outputs

I'd thus like to see a separation among the following concerns, within the documentation, all of which seem to be at play here:

• loading to dataframe tools and required formats for loading input data
• dataframe manipulators comparing human evaluation and machine-extracted "features" to each other, including manipulations to extract useful summary statistics and dataframes
• display utilities convenience collections (notebooks?) to gather and display the statistics against each other
• commandline tools for coordinating the execution of the pieces above

from joss-reviews.

Okay, some more digging around in doc/ has resolved some of these (for example, the feature formats in doc/feature_file.md) but I still think there are too many control surfaces buried in the config file to get a clear picture of what the general uses are.

Is this a tool for new feature development? For comparing human raters? for comparing human raters to existing features? for comparing existing features to each other? For designing new notebooks that have lots of the existing work already done?

All of the above and more?

I think this is a configuration-based approach to desktop evaluation of how different schemes for combining numeric features improve (or hurt) the correlation with human scorers, but as such it's practically an IDE, which is why I am suggesting a clearer breakdown of the sub-responsibilities.

from joss-reviews.

Miscellaneous

The authors make no particular performance claims, and the software runs in reasonable time (a few seconds) on the sample data and produces plausible-looking HTML documentation of correlations among users and features. I'm happy to check off the corresponding boxes there.

from joss-reviews.

Recommendation: accept - Minor revisions.
I think it's clear that there's a docs problem here:

• statement of need is too high-level and making it lower-level will probably articulate >1 role of users
• doc'n is unclear about documenting external storage format vs internal APIs
• API doc'n is not easily browseable (e.g. through a sphinx .. autodoc-including api.rst file)
• Documentation not easily browseable [though github itself renders the .md files, the API documentation isn't so easy. this could be remedied quickly with http://readthedocs.io or similar]

Separately, I have a few further quibbles that should not block publication but should probably be

• I'd like to see an introductory tutorial notebook, but I don't think that should block publication of this version
• A package with this many .py files should probably have a coverage and a linter-style test run at least between version revisions.
• installing through pip is the standard for Python -- and everything here works (if a custom requirements.txt file is included). It'd be nice to have sdist tarballs available on PyPI -- this would even be compatible with conda installations, after all, and the code defined in this package does not include any non-Python code AFAICT. (many of the declared dependencies require careful work with compilation, but that itself should be outside the scope of this project.)

from joss-reviews.

Thank you for such a detailed review, Jeremy! We'll go over your suggestions with Nitin.

from joss-reviews.

Indeed. Thanks for the careful review, Jeremy!
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 13:33 Anastassia Loukina [email protected]
wrote:

Thank you for such a detailed review, Jeremy! We'll go over your
suggestions with Nitin.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#33 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AAJ3kMYYD6LzFaRQll__9eaZx6axZooDks5qTonXgaJpZM4JARd3
.

from joss-reviews.

Thank you for such a detailed review, Jeremy! We'll go over your suggestions with Nitin.

💯 - yes thanks for this excellent review @jkahn. @aloukina & @desilinguist - please let me know when you've had a chance to update your submission based upon @jkahn's feedback.

from joss-reviews.

Hi @arfon and @jkahn,

Thanks again for the very useful review! It helped us come up with something a lot better, we think.

We have just released v5.1.0 of RSMTool that addresses the suggestions made in the review. Specifically:

1. The documentation has been completely overhauled and is now hosted on readthedocs. It now includes a very clear statement of need, several tutorials, as well as browsable API documentation.
2. (Almost all) expected warnings are now suppressed when running nosetests. One particular warnings remains which actually does indicate the use of about-to-be-deprecated code in a related package for which I have filed an issue. This should be fixed in the next release.
3. Several stylistic issues fixed using pep8 and pyflakes except for a couple that are documented in the PRs.
4. Code coverage is now automatically computed via coveralls.io.
5. I have started working on pip compatibility and I think I have a way to get it working in the next release when we update one of the packages which has since become more wheel-friendly.

from joss-reviews.

I give this a 👍 and defer to the editors as to when/if/how you should mint a new DOI.

Excellent, thanks @jkahn.

@desilinguist - is there an associated DOI for the v5.1.0 release. If so, please add the DOI as a comment here. We can then move forward to accept and publish.

from joss-reviews.

Hi @arfon, here is the DOI for the v5.1.0 release

Please let me know if that's okay or if I need to do something else.

from joss-reviews.