[PRE REVIEW]: Triglav: Iterative Refinement and Selection of Stable Features Using Shapley Values about joss-reviews HOT 25 CLOSED

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

from joss-reviews.

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.04 s (554.0 files/s, 152324.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                           5            302            515            778
Jupyter Notebook                 3              0           2673            512
Markdown                         7            157              0            413
TeX                              1             18              0            213
YAML                             4             15              8             97
TOML                             1              6              0             67
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            21            498           3196           2080
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

from joss-reviews.

Wordcount for paper.md is 1310

from joss-reviews.

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.4247618 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v036.i11 is OK
- 10.1093/nar/gkab433 is OK
- 10.1007/s10994-006-6226-1 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-022-32746-7 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005361 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-76620-7_6 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1128/spectrum.02065-22 is OK
- 10.1109/BIBM52615.2021.9669819 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.2307/3001968 may be a valid DOI for title: Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods
- 10.1186/s12859-022-04631-z may be a valid DOI for title: LANDMark: an ensemble approach to the supervised selection of biomarkers in high-throughput sequencing data

INVALID DOIs

- 10.1186/s40168-018-0603-41 is INVALID

from joss-reviews.

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

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

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

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot check references

from joss-reviews.

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.4247618 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v036.i11 is OK
- 10.1093/nar/gkab433 is OK
- 10.1007/s10994-006-6226-1 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-022-32746-7 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005361 is OK
- 10.1186/s40168-018-0603-4 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-76620-7_6 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9 is OK
- 10.2307/3001968 is OK
- 10.1186/s12859-022-04631-z is OK
- 10.1128/spectrum.02065-22 is OK
- 10.1109/BIBM52615.2021.9669819 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- 10.5555/3295222.3295230 is INVALID
- 10.5555/3495724.3497168 is INVALID

from joss-reviews.

@jrudar thanks for this submission. I am the AEiC on this track and here to help with initial steps. For the moment, could you see if you can address those potentially missing/invalid DOIs ☝️ ? You can edit the .bib file and call @editorialbot check references here to check the DOIs again. Thanks.
Additionally, the affiliations need not be full postal addresses, so you my remove street names/postal codes if you like. The format <department/discipline>, <institute/university/company>, <city>, <country> is sufficient.

Note also that I will trigger a scope review here by the editorial board. This is normal for submissions that are relatively small in size (in terms of lines of code). The scope review usually takes about 2 weeks and will determine if this work conforms to our substantial scholarly effort criteria.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot query scope

from joss-reviews.

Submission flagged for editorial review.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot check references

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.4247618 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v036.i11 is OK
- 10.1093/nar/gkab433 is OK
- 10.1007/s10994-006-6226-1 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-022-32746-7 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005361 is OK
- 10.1186/s40168-018-0603-4 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-76620-7_6 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9 is OK
- 10.2307/3001968 is OK
- 10.1186/s12859-022-04631-z is OK
- 10.1128/spectrum.02065-22 is OK
- 10.1109/BIBM52615.2021.9669819 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

from joss-reviews.

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

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

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

from joss-reviews.

@jrudar our editorial board has complete the scope review. I am sorry to report the board has determined this submission is not deemed in scope for JOSS in its current form. In particular it does not conform to our substantial scholarly effort criteria.

We will now proceed to reject this submission.

Note that the above conclusion does not mean the work is of a poor quality or not useful, it merely means that given its relatively small size it is not in scope for JOSS.

We hope you'll consider JOSS for any future (re)submissions, especially those of a more substantial nature.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot reject

from joss-reviews.

Paper rejected.

from joss-reviews.

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Thank you for taking the time to review our submission. Although we are disappointed that it was rejected, we will be taking this opportunity to improve our software. If possible, can you point to specific issues that the editorial board raised as weaknesses to the submission so that we can take these under advisement?

Joe

from joss-reviews.

@jrudar the core reason this is not in scope is the small size in terms of lines of code. Making these calls can be challenging but all board members who reviewed/voted felt that with ~ 778 lines of core functionality this does not conform to our substantial scholarly effort criteria.

One editor commented that it would be good to have the underlying algorithm properly validated, and perhaps peer reviewed through a dedicated paper in another journal. This latter is not typically a JOSS requirement but this would give them more confidence in the algorithm, and you may consider it.

Note all felt this work looks useful, and one member recognized the importance of the work by saying "On the other hand, explainable AI is a very important topic, and Shapley values are one of the leading methods in use, and being actively developed.",

I'll reiterate however, that the core reason for being out of scope is the size of the work submitted here. Therefore, if you are considering a future re-submission (which we welcome!), it is recommended to extend the software functionality where possible.

I hope this addresses your request.

from joss-reviews.