[PRE REVIEW]: idiolect: An R package for forensic authorship analysis

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @andreanini (Andrea Nini)
Repository: https://github.com/andreanini/idiolect
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss
Version: v.1.0.1
Editor: @samhforbes
Reviewers: @stefanocoretta
Managing EiC: Samuel Forbes

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/49bd3243febd449d68c66411b4e0ac47"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/49bd3243febd449d68c66411b4e0ac47/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/49bd3243febd449d68c66411b4e0ac47/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/49bd3243febd449d68c66411b4e0ac47)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @andreanini. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@andreanini if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.03 s (2115.5 files/s, 203629.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Markdown                        16            185              0           2489
R                               38            680            442           1328
TeX                              3             32              0            353
YAML                             3              9              7            109
Rmd                              2            117            166             51
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            62           1023            615           4330
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    93	Andrea
    28	Andrea Nini

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 719

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU General Public License v2.0 (Check here for OSI approval)

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1093/llc/fqv040 is OK
- 10.1093/llc/fqx066 is OK
- 10.1016/j.eswa.2016.06.029 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00774 is OK
- 10.1007/s10115-019-01408-4 is OK
- 10.1111/1556-4029.12233 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: TXT 4N6: Method, consistency, and distinctiveness ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Forensic Linguistics: Applying the Scientific Prin...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Authorship Verification based on the Likelihood Ra...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- 10.1002/9781394266661.ch3 may be a valid DOI for title: A forensic authorship analysis of the Ayia Napa ra...
- 10.1093/llc/fqy042 may be a valid DOI for title: Attributing the Bixby Letter using n-gram tracing
- 10.1093/llc/fqx065 may be a valid DOI for title: An authorship analysis of the Jack the Ripper lett...
- 10.32614/rj-2016-007 may be a valid DOI for title: Stylometry with R: A package for computational tex...
- 10.1007/978-3-319-65813-1_14 may be a valid DOI for title: An Improved Impostors Method for Authorship Verifi...
- 10.1017/9781108974851 may be a valid DOI for title: A Theory of Linguistic Individuality for Authorshi...

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

quanteda: An R package for the quantitative analysis of textual data
Submitting author: @kenbenoit
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @lmullen, @borishejblum, @alexgarciac
Similarity score: 0.7024

Fast, Consistent Tokenization of Natural Language Text
Submitting author: @lmullen
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @arfon
Similarity score: 0.7012

R-Opitools – An Opinion Analytical Tool for Big Digital Text Document (DTD)
Submitting author: @MAnalytics
Handling editor: @ajstewartlang (Active)
Reviewers: @cjbarrie, @justinchuntingho, @jaeyk
Similarity score: 0.6883

text2map: R Tools for Text Matrices
Submitting author: @dustinstoltz
Handling editor: @chartgerink (Retired)
Reviewers: @alexanderfurnas, @cmaimone
Similarity score: 0.6879

Arabica: A Python package for exploratory analysis of text data
Submitting author: @PetrKorab
Handling editor: @oliviaguest (Active)
Reviewers: @linuxscout, @amitkumarj441
Similarity score: 0.6752

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[andreanini]

Suggested reviewers:

Mike Kestemont (@ mikekestemont)
George Mikros (@ gmikros)
Simone Rebora (@ SimoneRebora)
Jean-Baptiste Camps (@ Jean-Baptiste-Camps)
Artjoms Šeļa (@ perechen)
Ben Nagy (@ bnagy)

[samhforbes]

Hi @andreanini thanks for submitting to JOSS.
For packages of this size we will often run checks to see whether it is in scope for JOSS according to our submission requirements, so I will run a scope check now.
If you have any particular thoughts as to why it should be considered in scope you can comment that below, otherwise we will let you know when this is complete.

[samhforbes]

@editorialbot query scope

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[andreanini]

Hi @samhforbes, can you just clarify what you mean by "size"? The package has more than 1,000 lines or R code and it's the result of more than three months of work over 125 commits. I can only see these two criteria in your guidelines regarding size. If there are any other concerns regarding the other parameters please let me know and I'll see if I can provide any clarifications. The package has not been cited yet because it's new but it has the potential of being widely cited. The publication of the paper in JOSS would also help in that regard, of course.

I'm concerned by the fact that I cannot see any paper in the closed issues that has been flagged by query-score and then accepted, which seems to suggest that this might amount to a desk-rejection effectively.

[danielskatz]

@andreanini - My guess is that about 10-20% of scope queried submissions get accepted for review, and about 75-80% of those do get accepted.

[andreanini]

Thank you for your clarification, @danielskatz. Before I submitted the paper my impression was that my contribution fitted the criteria and I thought the stats about lines of code confirmed this. If you could let me know what other concerns you have I can try to provide some comments to address them.

[samhforbes]

Hi @andreanini thanks for your patience. Following editorial review we are happy to proceed with reviewing idiolect.

[samhforbes]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @samhforbes is now the editor

[samhforbes]

Hi @thomaskrause, @stefanocoretta and @mikekestemont would any of you be willing to review this submission for us? We follow these review guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

[stefanocoretta]

Sure!

@editorialbot generate my checklist

[samhforbes]

@editorialbot add @stefanocoretta as reviewer

[editorialbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

[samhforbes]

@editorialbot add @stefanocoretta as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@stefanocoretta added to the reviewers list!