Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[REVIEW]: FedIRT: An R package and Shiny app for estimating federated item response theory models #7869

Open
editorialbot opened this issue Mar 3, 2025 · 8 comments
Assignees
Labels
R review Rez TeX Track: 4 (SBCS) Social, Behavioral, and Cognitive Sciences

Comments

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator

editorialbot commented Mar 3, 2025

Submitting author: @trtfj (Feng Ji)
Repository: https://github.com/Feng-Ji-Lab/FedIRT
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.1.0
Editor: @samhforbes
Reviewers: @salbalkus, @asmitamitra
Archive: Pending

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d2e94b2b82faa5643ca5d91e749d3a2b"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d2e94b2b82faa5643ca5d91e749d3a2b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d2e94b2b82faa5643ca5d91e749d3a2b/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d2e94b2b82faa5643ca5d91e749d3a2b)

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

@salbalkus & @asmitamitra, 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 @samhforbes 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 @salbalkus

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.4324/9781410605269 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2012.01973 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v048.i06 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v017.i05 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1610.05492 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v020.i05 is OK
- 10.1007/BF02293801 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Communication-efficient learning of deep networks ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Federated Psychometrics: A Distributed, Privacy-pr...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Federated Item Response Theory: A Distributed, Pri...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Federated Item Response Models
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Predictive Modeling of Uniform Differential Item F...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.98  T=0.03 s (2259.4 files/s, 207030.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R                               55            415            842           2555
XML                              2             11              0           1243
CSV                              5              0              0            501
Markdown                         3            153              2            342
TeX                              1              1              0             94
YAML                             2             11              6             55
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            68            591            850           4790
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    54	BiyingZhou
     9	Biying Zhou
     5	trtfj

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Paper file info:

⚠️ Wordcount for paper.md is 1819

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

License info:

🟡 License found: Other (Check here for OSI approval)

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

@salbalkus
Copy link

salbalkus commented Mar 4, 2025

Review checklist for @salbalkus

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

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/Feng-Ji-Lab/FedIRT?
  • 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 (@trtfj) 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?

@salbalkus
Copy link

salbalkus commented Mar 5, 2025

Hi @trtfj and @BiyingZhou,

Thank you for this nice addition to the R ecosystem. I have yet to check the functionality of the software, which I'll do a little later, so thus far I've gone through everything besides that. I've found four major areas that require addressing, which I've included as issues on the GitHub repo:

Some other comments:

  • Since it seems to be an important part of using the package, it might be worth including in the documentation how to open a port, for those less technically inclined.
  • When I use the runserver() and runclient() functions, the Shiny app appears, but with a display saying Error: could not find function "shell" which I assume is unintended behavior. My operating system is Linux (Fedora Kinoite); could this perhaps be a culprit?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
R review Rez TeX Track: 4 (SBCS) Social, Behavioral, and Cognitive Sciences
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants