[REVIEW]: LongMemory.jl: Generating, Estimating, and Forecasting Long Memory Models in Julia

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @everval (J. Eduardo Vera-Valdés)
Repository: https://github.com/everval/LongMemory.jl
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): JOSS-submission
Version: v0.1.2
Editor: @lrnv
Reviewers: @PieterjanRobbe, @Santymax98, @ismailguzel, @baxmittens
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/bbc83cd4c1a9158d36da072a9ae2ac0e"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/bbc83cd4c1a9158d36da072a9ae2ac0e/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/bbc83cd4c1a9158d36da072a9ae2ac0e/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/bbc83cd4c1a9158d36da072a9ae2ac0e)

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

@PieterjanRobbe & @Santymax98 & @ismailguzel & @baxmittens, 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 @lrnv 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 @PieterjanRobbe

[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]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-642-35512-7 is OK
- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.LongMemoryTS is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2412.13855 is OK
- 10.1080/02626665609493644 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: ‘fracdiff‘: Fractionally Differenced ARIMA Models
- No DOI given, and none found for title: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Comp...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ‘longmemo‘: Statistics for Long-Memory Processes a...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Effects of the Paris Agreement and the COVID-19 Pa...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.98  T=0.03 s (1214.7 files/s, 126223.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                           13            822           1195            996
Markdown                        13            140              0            253
YAML                             5              3              7            191
TeX                              2              8              0             83
TOML                             3              5              0             38
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            36            978           1202           1561
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   123	everval
     8	CompatHelper Julia

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 560

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

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

[PieterjanRobbe]

Review checklist for @PieterjanRobbe

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/everval/LongMemory.jl?
• 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 (@everval) 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?

[lrnv]

@PieterjanRobbe, @Santymax98, @ismailguzel, @baxmittens greetings ! This is the review thread, in which we'll discuss and report everything happening around this review. I guess that all of you are familiar with JOSS reviews ? If not, please tell me and I'll give you more details. The first thing you have to do is to create a checklist for yourself by entering here @editorialbot generate my checklist.

We'll consider a 4-to-6 week window for the review, so for @baxmittens for example no problem, you can wait until mid-february to come here.

[lrnv]

@everval have you ever published a JOSS paper ? The review works as follows: The four reviewers here are supposed to review your code, its documentation, the paper you wrote, and are encouraged to open issues and bugs onto your repository. Please take the time to consider what they say and answer them, the overall goal is of course to improve the quality of your proposal.

[lrnv]

@PieterjanRobbe, @Santymax98, @ismailguzel, @baxmittens, @everval, please cross-reference here everything that is happening on the main repository so that I can keep an eye on the review. Do not hesitate to ping me (@lrnv) if something is unclear or if you have the slightests doubt.

[everval]

@lrnv This is my first ever submission to JOSS (first time, long time). And I am looking forward to the suggestions to improve the package and documentation.