[REVIEW]: WPSS, a web panel sample service

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @tvi-cdsp (Tom Villette)
Repository: https://github.com/CDSP-SCPO/WPSS-for-ESS-webpanel
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss
Version: 2023-06-21
Editor: @ajstewartlang
Reviewers: @joaojcorreia, @stain
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5768aec952b754f50f444760106706af"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5768aec952b754f50f444760106706af/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5768aec952b754f50f444760106706af/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5768aec952b754f50f444760106706af)

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

@joaojcorreia & @pmkruyen, 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:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @ajstewartlang 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 @joaojcorreia

📝 Checklist for @stain

[editorialbot]

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:

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.18 s (1865.1 files/s, 168208.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                         110           2298            979           8401
PO File                         12           2117           2652           5211
HTML                           123             97              1           3933
Markdown                        40            767              0           1455
YAML                            28             37              9            991
JSON                             2              0              0            450
Sass                            10             26             35            138
Dockerfile                       1             14             13             25
Bourne Shell                     2              0              1             20
SVG                              1              0              0              1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           329           5356           3690          20625
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 886

[editorialbot]

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

[joaojcorreia]

Review checklist for @joaojcorreia

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/CDSP-SCPO/WPSS-for-ESS-webpanel?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@tvi-cdsp) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

• Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

[pmkruyen]

Fyi

I have not confirmed, but now you have assigned me as reviewer, I have no other option than to do the review 😉🎉

Will try to do the review in the next few weeks (mind that these are my most busy teaching weeks).

[pmkruyen]

Review checklist for @pmkruyen

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/CDSP-SCPO/WPSS-for-ESS-webpanel?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@tvi-cdsp) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

• Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

[ajstewartlang]

Fyi

I have not confirmed, but now you have assigned me as reviewer, I have no other option than to do the review 😉🎉

Will try to do the review in the next few weeks (mind that these are my most busy teaching weeks).

Thanks @pmkruyen I do appreciate it - if you need a little extra time, that is fine.

[joaojcorreia]

Below you will find some of my notes on the article and on the repository documentation. I am currently without a functioning Qualtrics account, something I hope my institution's IT department will sort out in the next couple of weeks. Once I have it, I will move forward with installing and testing WPSS.

---

Notes on the article:

• General note: The authors often use a conditional tone when discussing the potential use cases for WPSS. Given the tool's significant value, a more assertive tone is recommended. Emphasizing the value of WPSS will enhance the overall communication.
• Summary: Well-written and effectively conveys the intended message. However, I suggest placing greater emphasis on the practical aspects of WPSS.
• Statement of need: While all the components are present, I suggest reorganizing the text to better highlight the value and necessity of WPSS:

1. Emphasize the significance of cross-national web surveys.
2. Highlight the challenges associated with managing such surveys.
3. Demonstrate how WPSS effectively addresses these challenges, providing added value to researchers engaged in cross-national web surveys.
4. Clearly articulate the reasons for choosing a tool integrated with Qualtrics.

Notes on the documentation:

• The statement of need currently lacks clarity and depth. To enhance its effectiveness, consider further development, including the incorporation of a couple of brief, generic use cases directly in the GitHub README. While detailed presentations of various use cases are available on the project website, having concise examples in the README would provide potential users with immediate clarity on the tool's relevance and utility.

[pmkruyen]

Hello! I started the review early November, asked a basic question on the 'issue' page of the repository to login. So far, I haven't heard anything back from the authors.

When I heard back I will continue my review mid January; unfortunately I won't have access to Qualtrics from late January onwards making it impossible (I assume) to finish the review then (ergo: I need to step back at the end of next month.

Thanks for the help.

[ajstewartlang]

@pmkruyen Thanks for letting me know. @tvi-cdsp and @CDSP-SCPO could you respond please (noting the constraint here)?

[ajstewartlang]

👋 @joaojcorreia @pmkruyen I've been trying to contact @tvi-cdsp via GH and via email (using a couple of different addresses) asking them to reply to the queries above. So far I haven't had any response. I'll give it another few weeks - if I don't hear back soon, I'll have to reject this submission unfortunately.

[tvi-cdsp]

Hello,
i apologise for the long delay in our response,
The team member in charge of monitoring the GH repo left our team and no one else here was watching it, also my own work Github account was set up incorrectly and i did not receive any notifications until the email to info.cdsp...
All of this is hopefully fixed now, and @pmkruyen query should also be answered in our github issues.

Again, sorry for the delay, the holiday season did not help either here.

[pmkruyen]

Dear all, I understand the situation, but because of change in positions (and employer), I can no longer access Qualtrics. I have to withdraw from the review. Hope you find another reviewer. I am very sorry for this. Kind regards, Peter

…

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 5:38 PM Tom Villette ***@***.***> wrote: Hello, i apologise for the long delay in our response, The team member in charge of monitoring the GH repo left our team and no one else here was watching it, also my own work Github account was set up incorrectly and i did not receive any notifications until the email to info.cdsp... All of this is hopefully fixed now, and @pmkruyen <https://github.com/pmkruyen> query should also be answered in our github issues. Again, sorry for the delay, the holiday season did not help either here. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#6022 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE2FMK2S5U32ASADFVPSYQDYP7RQ7AVCNFSM6AAAAAA67IIEP6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSMBWGQ3DKNBTGI> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[ajstewartlang]

Thanks for letting us know, Peter (@pmkruyen). I appreciate the time you spent reviewing this submission.

[ajstewartlang]

@editorialbot remove @pmkruyen from reviewers

[editorialbot]

@pmkruyen removed from the reviewers list!

[ajstewartlang]

@editorialbot add @stain as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@stain added to the reviewers list!

[stain]

Review checklist for @stain

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/CDSP-SCPO/WPSS-for-ESS-webpanel?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@tvi-cdsp) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

• Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

[ajstewartlang]

👋 @stain and @joaojcorreia how are your reviews of this submission going?

[ajstewartlang]

Hello, i apologise for the long delay in our response, The team member in charge of monitoring the GH repo left our team and no one else here was watching it, also my own work Github account was set up incorrectly and i did not receive any notifications until the email to info.cdsp... All of this is hopefully fixed now, and @pmkruyen query should also be answered in our github issues.

Again, sorry for the delay, the holiday season did not help either here.

👋 @tvi-cdsp Can I check that the issues that @joaojcorreia mentioned above have been addressed?

[ajstewartlang]

👋 @tvi-cdsp could you respond to the issue please? I've also tagged you in another repo.

[ajstewartlang]

@gmi-cdsp @tvi-cdsp tagging you both to see if you can help with the above. A response by the end of August would be appreciated.

[Tepau]

👋 @ajstewartlang. Sorry for the delay, my two colleagues mentioned above are no longer part of the team, so I'm taking over this subject. I've just pushed the modifications requested by @joaojcorreia , and I hope you'll find them satisfactory. I'm now available to finalize the publication of this software paper.

[ajstewartlang]

👋 @ajstewartlang. Sorry for the delay, my two colleagues mentioned above are no longer part of the team, so I'm taking over this subject. I've just pushed the modifications requested by @joaojcorreia , and I hope you'll find them satisfactory. I'm now available to finalize the publication of this software paper.

Many thanks for picking this up @Tepau ! @joaojcorreia could you take a look at the modifications please? @stain do you have any issues to raise?

[ajstewartlang]

👋 @joaojcorreia @stain Might you be able to check things incl these modifications please?

[joaojcorreia]

Hi @ajstewartlang , I apologize. I've been overwhelmed with other things and this got left behind. I am going to look at it ASAP.