Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @nhejazi, @terrytangyuan it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper 🎉.

⭐️ Important ⭐️

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-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/joss-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

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

I saw that you submitted for review to JSS already https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.04754.pdf. Is this submission to JOSS still necessary?

@terrytangyuan Hi! We initially submitted the paper (given that it's a CRAN package) to JSS a couple of months back but it didn't work out there. We assure you that currently the paper is not under consideration for submission at any other journal or conference. We are hoping that this paper goes through the rigorous review and gets published at JOSS!

@sayanddude I see. There are many other tools for (automated) exploratory data analysis in R. What makes this package useful/different?

@whedon generate pdf

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

@whedon generate pdf

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

@sayanddude I see. There are many other tools for (automated) exploratory data analysis in R. What makes this package useful/different?

@terrytangyuan Hi! We have added a new section “Comparison with other R Packages” in the updated version of the paper pdf generated above. In this section we have given a snapshot of various capabilities of SmartEDA vs. some of the competing R packages (such as dlookr, explorer, DataExplorer, etc.) and have highlighted its advantages. Figure 9 in the paper gives a snapshot of the comparison and shows how it’s better than most of the available R packages for automated exploratory data analysis (Please find attached the figure below).

To summarize, some of the key benefits of SmartEDA are:
• No need remember the different R package names as SmartEDA has most of the exploratory function and dependencies
• No need to write lengthy R scripts. SmartEDA does the exploratory in one line R script
• It cuts down time for exploratory data analysis
• SmartEDA has the extension of data.table to build customized summary statistics and cross tables
• SmartEDA function can generate 100’s of ggplot (like scatter, bar, stacked bar, boxplot, density, qqplot, co-ordinate plots) at a time with customized theme using ggthemes package options

Also, SmartEDA is mentioned in the study conducted by Staniak and Biecek (2018) where they reviewed the landscape of R packages for automated Exploratory analysis. Some of the distinguishing features of SmartEDA pointed out by the authors when comparing it with other R packages are:
• The SmartEDA package reports skewness and displays QQ plots against normal distribution
• SmartEDA package provides a method of visualizing multivariate relationships - parallel coordinate plot.
• SmartEDA give a reasonable insight into variables distributions and simple relationships.
• Parallel Co-ordinates Plots (PCP) in SmartEDA is unique and is very well done.
This paper by Staniak and Biecek (2019) is available in ArXiv- https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.02101.pdf

Reference:
Mateusz Staniak and Przemyslaw Biecek (2019), “The Landscape of R Packages for Automated Exploratory Data Analysis”, arXiv:1904.02101 [stat.CO]

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

@nhejazi @terrytangyuan Requesting the reviewers to kindly consider the latest version of the pdf generated above (10.21105.joss.01509.pdf). We have added a section on “Comparison with other R Packages” and corrected some formatting issues that were there in the earlier version.

@sayanddude Thanks. The table looks great. Some feedback:

• I see lots of long functions with >150 lines of code and the code style is not consistent (I suggest running a lintr check). Similarly, in the roxygen docs, the style is not consistent. I see both ##' and #'. The indentation levels and the roxygen syntax are sometimes incorrect. Please double check.
• There isn't any unit test for the package.
• Have you tried running this package on large datasets?
• Please make the paper more concise - I see many pages where each page only has one giant picture.

@terrytangyuan Thanks for the feedback! I will work on your comments and will get back to you with the updated paper and the required code changes as soon as possible.

@sayanddude — can you give us a status update? If you will need considerable more time, it would help if you let us know and we can add a "paused" label here.

@labarba - Hi! We are almost done addressing all the comments of the reviewer. We are now at the final stages of creating the unit test for the package. Please give us a couple of more days, we will update the code repository along with the updated paper by Tuesday (6th Aug, 2019) end of the day. Thanks!

@whedon generate pdf

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

@terrytangyuan We have worked on addressing all of your comments. Please find below our response to each action items:

• I see lots of long functions with >150 lines of code and the code style is not consistent (I suggest running a lintr check). Similarly, in the roxygen docs, the style is not consistent. I see both ##' and #'. The indentation levels and the roxygen syntax are sometimes incorrect. Please double check.
Thanks for your comment! We have updated the Github repository and we have ensured the length of almost all the functions are below 150 lines of code. We have also run a lintr check and have corrected all the issues related to style inconsistencies, indentation issues and incorrect syntaxes.

• There isn't any unit test for the package.
Thanks a lot for the comment! We have now implemented the unit test of the package (available at https://github.com/daya6489/SmartEDA).

• Have you tried running this package on large datasets?.
Yes, the package works well on large datasets. Recently, we applied the SmartEDA package on the Microsoft malware prediction data in Kaggle (available at- https://www.kaggle.com/ajithvallabai/microsoft-malware-prediction/data ). This dataset was considerably large i.e. it had 8900000 rows and 82 columns. The SmartEDA package worked seamlessly on this dataset.

• Please make the paper more concise - I see many pages where each page only has one giant picture.
Thanks for the comment! We have considerably reduced the size of the paper (please refer to the updated version of the paper i.e. 10.21105.joss.01509.pdf ) by removing a few verbose content and also by consolidating most of the images into a single figure i.e. Figure 2.

Thanks and Regards,
Sayan

@labarba Hi! As discussed, we have completed working on the comments and have updated the Github code repository along with the paper.

The handling editor, @mgymrek, will take it from here.

@sayanddude thanks for making these changes

@nhejazi, @terrytangyuan can you now go over the revision? If your comments have been sufficiently addressed please finish filling out the checklist

@sayanddude Thank you for quickly addressing our concerns, including the addition of the DOIs to all references (where possible). I've gone ahead and completed the reviewer checklist available to me and am ready to recommend the software paper for acceptance into JOSS. There may yet be other concerns to address but I do think the paper and R package are close.

@nhejazi Thank you so much!

Thanks!

@sayanddude see next steps below.

Some minor comments on the paper:

• "EDA can be categorized into Descriptive statistical techniques and graphical techniques": uncapitalize descriptive
• You can reference just Figure 2 rather than spelling out (a) through (f)
• There is a reference to a Figure 9 that I believe should be to Figure 3 instead

After fixing those typos, can you please make a zenodo archive, being sure the title and author list match those on the paper, and report the DOI here?

@sayanddude Thanks for addressing the comments. The paper looks good to me now and I recommend for publication.

@terrytangyuan Thank you so much!

@whedon generate pdf

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

Thanks!

@sayanddude see next steps below.

Some minor comments on the paper:

• "EDA can be categorized into Descriptive statistical techniques and graphical techniques": uncapitalize descriptive
• You can reference just Figure 2 rather than spelling out (a) through (f)
• There is a reference to a Figure 9 that I believe should be to Figure 3 instead

After fixing those typos, can you please make a zenodo archive, being sure the title and author list match those on the paper, and report the DOI here?

@mgymrek Thanks for the feedback! I have corrected all the required typos in the updated version of the pdf.
Also, I have created the zenodo archive for the SmartEDA package (version 0.3.2) with DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3383824 and the URL is: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3383824.

I have ensured that the title and the author names are same as the ones mentioned in the paper. Please let me know if I have missed out on anything. Thank you so much!

@whedon generate pdf

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3383824 as archive

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3383824 is the archive.

@whedon set 0.3.2 as version

OK. 0.3.2 is the version.

Thanks @sayanddude!
@openjournals/joss-eics this paper is ready to be accepted!

@whedon accept

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#946

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#946, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

@whedon accept deposit=true

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

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

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

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#947
1. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01509
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...

Thank you @mgymrek , @nhejazi and @terrytangyuan for guidance, support, and patience! It is much appreciated!
It has been a great experience for us! And we look forward to submitting our next software at JOSS :)

@arfon Should we close this issue now that the paper has been deposited?

Yes

🎉🎉🎉 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://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01509/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01509)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01509">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01509/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01509/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01509

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software 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: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.salsalabs.org/donate-to-joss