@jsta: on your minor fix.3, I've just gone over every notebook and replaced/removed any instance of "simple", "easy", and "trivial". This has been an incredible wake-up to how the language can influence the student's attitude. I think it's a lot better now. Thanks!

from jose-reviews.

Hello @lheagy and @jsta, I have looked at your issues about the links and access to the data (#3 and #7. Very good points both. A few thoughts and things I have(n't) done:

• There is one case (ie. Twitter dataset in Lab 9) where the license of the data does not allow public repackaging. In those cases, I'm hosting it on a private site for students only.
• There are several cases where the datasets come from a portal (CDRC data) that requires a free login to download datasets. I would like keep these cases as they are because:
  a) Those logins are used for statistics reported back to the funding body of the portal so I think it is important to give credit instead of downloading once and linking to the Github repo (effectively repackaging data).
  b) I think it is also important from the pedagogical point of view that the student gets some experience in accessing "real-world" data in the way they would have to if they were looking for data outside a structured course
• In cases where the data is already repackaged (ie. in the data folder), I have updated the notebooks to illustrate how, in addition to reading the file locally if you have downloaded it, you can read it from the course website link. This is implemented in commits from 7a767 to 4f194.
• In response to @lheagy's suggestion to write a bespoke method to download it in the notebook, I've decided against it, although I think it can be a useful approach in other contexts. My main motivation for this is:
  a) The pedagogical argument mentioned above of "forcing" students to get out in the wild to access data
  b) My sense is the code, even if explicitly mentioned as optional, would feel too advanced and put off students somehow

from jose-reviews.

Congratulations, @darribas, your JOSE paper is published! 🚀

Tremendous gratitude go to our reviewers: @lheagy, @jsta — we can do this thanks to your contribution! 🙏

from jose-reviews.

@lheagy, @jsta — Thank you for agreeing to review for JOSE! This is where the action happens: work your way through the review checklist, feel free to ask questions or post comments here, and also open issues in the submission repository as needed. Godspeed!

from jose-reviews.

Congrats on a great course @darribas! All good on my end @labarba 🎉

from jose-reviews.

I checked the remaining items in my review list. I think the paper is good to go.

from jose-reviews.

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @lheagy, it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper 🎉.

⭐ Important ⭐

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews:

2. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

from jose-reviews.

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

from jose-reviews.

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

from jose-reviews.

Congrats on a really nice course @darribas! They are interesting examples and are well-explained. I have a few review comments, and once these are addressed I think it will be ready for publication

review comments

• darribas/gds18#1: the repo license (cc-by-nc-sa) is different than the license stated in the README and on the website (cc-by) (@labarba, does JOSE have any concerns with the 'NC' portion of the license as it is not considered "Free Cultural Work"?)
• darribas/gds18#10: there is no version information in the github repository
• darribas/gds18#9: community guidelines. I did not see these anywhere in the repo
• darribas/gds18#7: a suggestion on simplifying the process for downloading data in the labs. Right now, the learner has to follow at least 2 links to get to the data from the notebook in most cases; this overhead could be reduced so there is less startup time for the labs.

minor fixes (not publication blockers in my opinion)

• darribas/gds18#6: installation instructions conda activate is preferred over source activate
• darribas/gds18#8: it looks like the api of pysal changed, so a couple of the labs error on import

feedback on the review process

• the paper criteria Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is? is a bit vague to me. I quite like the paper heading "Experience of use" used by @darribas and think that this captures the spirit of this criteria. So it might be worth considering that language as a bold-faced title for this bullet-point

from jose-reviews.

This paper and these course materials looks quite good to me. I focused my review on the labs portion of the repository. In addition to the comments by @lheagy, I had several ideas for improvement:

review comments

• Does the conda file specify all the dependencies including ones required for the optional excercises? (darribas/gds18#2)

minor fixes

• In the lab01 notebook, dropping columns is shown using both del foo and pandas.drop syntax. Consider only using panadas syntax to decrease cognative load?

• The paper states that the target audience is learners with little to no prior knowledge. Maybe text to this effect could be added to the Overview page?

• There are multiple instances where an operation is claimed to be simple or easy. I would recommend not emphasizing this so much as it can de-motivate people who are struggling.

• The default data path is highly variable among notebooks. Maybe these could be made consistent? (darribas/gds18#3)

from jose-reviews.

@jsta: I've addressed your minor fix.2 in #2157538de5fa10f74eb53652aeb72bfbed0afcf5

from jose-reviews.

@jsta: on your minor fix.1, a bit of context: del foo and pandas.drop do not the same thing exactly. The former removes "in-place" while the latter creates a copy without the columns dropped. Both are useful in different contexts. Based on that, I've decided not to change it. However, I added a bit more of text to illustrate the differences and make them come out more clearly (d4d8e522f14fce5ebe09f3f5bced20ce3f9eb289).

from jose-reviews.

@labarba, @lheagy, @jsta. THANK you very much for going over my paper and project. I really appreciate your insight and comments. I think I have addressed every comment. Where the reviewer had opened an issue, I've responded there; where there was a comment in this thread, I've responded accordingly too. I think that should cover all of your concerns but I'm more than happy to work further on aspects you consider need it. I'll wait for your response, and thank you very much again!

from jose-reviews.

Hi everybody!

I see a couple of remaining unchecked items in the review lists. Can you all give me a quick update on your status? Thanks!

from jose-reviews.

@whedon generate pdf

from jose-reviews.

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

from jose-reviews.

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

from jose-reviews.

¶1

• conscutive >> typo: consecutive

¶2

• Although the content presented is relevant… >> the content presented where? The point you're trying to make here is unclear. And perhaps you could start this paragraph with the second sentence. (Or, you might just delete the first sentence.)

from jose-reviews.

• darribas/gds18#11

from jose-reviews.

• darribas/gds18#12

from jose-reviews.

• darribas/gds18#13

(make same change elsewhere)

from jose-reviews.

"Although the learning emphasis is placed first and foremost on the student, there is support provided mainly through two channels: within the lab, there is at least one instructor for every 15 students answering questions one-on-one or in small groups; beyond contact time, the class has access to an online discussion forum monitored by the course leader, where students are encouraged to post not only questions but also answers and responses both to other students and to their original enquiry, in case they solve it themselves."

This is one LONG sentence.

• (1) can you cut this up? (2) can you remove syntactic expletives? (there is, there are); (3) can you simplify? E.g., "the learning emphasis is placed first and foremost on the student"—is this hyperbole to say "student-centered"?

from jose-reviews.

@whedon check references

from jose-reviews.

Attempting to check references...

from jose-reviews.

OK DOIs

- 10.2307/1183338 is OK
- 10.1080/10618600.2017.1384734 is OK
- 10.1177/0160017607301605  is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- ISBN:9781446287484 is INVALID
- ISBN:978-0-471-73545-8 is INVALID
- ISBN:9781526402349 is INVALID
- ISBN: 978-0-470-86413-5 is INVALID
- ISBN:0803922450 is INVALID

from jose-reviews.

@darribas — You have some bad DOIs in your BibTex. Please check/fix.

from jose-reviews.

Hello @labarba, thank you very much for the review! I've gone over your comments, and I think I've included them all. The only one I'm unsure is the one relating the DOIs. The ones that come as invalid are all books, so they don't technically have a DOI but a ISBN. Following this, I've tried to turn them into actionable ISBNs (ISBN-A), but not sure if with full success. If there's any guidance in the journal about how to deal with these, I'll be happy to follow it if what I've done doesn't work.

from jose-reviews.

@whedon generate pdf

from jose-reviews.

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

from jose-reviews.

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

from jose-reviews.

These links are not resolving:

https://doi.org/10.978.0471/735458
https://doi.org/10.978.08039/22450
https://doi.org/10.978.0470/864135
https://doi.org/10.978.14462/87484

If the reference doesn't have a DOI, then don't provide a DOI.

from jose-reviews.

Thanks very much @labarba. I've just removed the failing DOIs with 8a83b98. Let me know if there's anything else I should do.

from jose-reviews.

@whedon generate pdf

from jose-reviews.

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

from jose-reviews.

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

from jose-reviews.

@darribas — Before we publish your JOSE paper, we'll need: 1) a new tagged release; please report the version number here, and 2) an archival deposit in Zenodo, Figshare or a similar service; please report the archive DOI here.

from jose-reviews.

Fantastic! Here it is:

Let me know if I need to do anything else. Really looking forward to having this published, super excited!

from jose-reviews.

Can you edit the metadata of the Zenodo deposit so the title and author list matches the paper? Thanks!

from jose-reviews.

@whedon set v4.1 as version

from jose-reviews.

OK. v4.1 is the version.

from jose-reviews.

Done!

from jose-reviews.

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.2650534 as archive

from jose-reviews.

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.2650534 is the archive.

from jose-reviews.

@whedon accept

from jose-reviews.

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

from jose-reviews.

PDF failed to compile for issue #42 with the following error:

Can't find any papers to compile :-(

from jose-reviews.

OK DOIs

- 10.2307/1183338 is OK
- 10.1080/10618600.2017.1384734 is OK
- 10.1177/0160017607301605  is OK

MISSING DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.dddmp.4350070 may be missing for title: Geodemographics, GIS and neighbourhood targeting
- https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412939591.n896 may be missing for title: Point pattern analysis

INVALID DOIs

- 10.978.1526/402349 is INVALID

from jose-reviews.

@whedon generate pdf

from jose-reviews.

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

from jose-reviews.

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

from jose-reviews.

@whedon accept

from jose-reviews.

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

from jose-reviews.

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/jose-papers#31

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/jose-papers#31, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

from jose-reviews.

OK DOIs

- 10.2307/1183338 is OK
- 10.1080/10618600.2017.1384734 is OK
- 10.1177/0160017607301605  is OK

MISSING DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.dddmp.4350070 may be missing for title: Geodemographics, GIS and neighbourhood targeting
- https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412939591.n896 may be missing for title: Point pattern analysis

INVALID DOIs

- 10.978.1526/402349 is INVALID

from jose-reviews.

Would you accept these little tweaks to your bib?

darribas/gds18#14

from jose-reviews.

@whedon accept deposit=true

from jose-reviews.

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

from jose-reviews.

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSE! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 openjournals/jose-papers#32
1. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00042
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

from jose-reviews.

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00042/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00042)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00042">
  <img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00042/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00042/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00042

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Education is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

• Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: http://jose.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.salsalabs.org/donate-to-jose

from jose-reviews.

Fantastic!!! THANK you very much @labarba for superb editorial work and @lheagy and @jsta for a terrific reviewing!

from jose-reviews.