[PRE REVIEW]: SweetBean: A declarative language for behavioral experiments with human and artificial participants

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @younesStrittmatter (Younes Strittmatter)
Repository: https://github.com/AutoResearch/sweetbean
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @sappelhoff
Reviewers: @jodeleeuw, @hauselin
Managing EiC: Samuel Forbes

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/835fcabe348dc59fc6b03e11fec6f5bc"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/835fcabe348dc59fc6b03e11fec6f5bc/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/835fcabe348dc59fc6b03e11fec6f5bc/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/835fcabe348dc59fc6b03e11fec6f5bc)

Author instructions

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

@younesStrittmatter 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]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.3758/s13428-014-0458-y is OK
- 10.21105/joss.06839 is OK
- 10.1016/j.tics.2023.04.008 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2404.11794 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2306.09377 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2410.20268 is OK
- 10.3758/s13428-021-01598-2 is OK
- 10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- None

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.98  T=0.07 s (1598.6 files/s, 215078.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jupyter Notebook                17              0           2415           4646
JavaScript                       3             11              7           2229
Python                          37            519            602           2135
Markdown                        30            319              0            733
HTML                            11              2              0            391
YAML                             6             27             15            191
TeX                              1              7              0             85
TOML                             1              9              2             46
CSS                              1              0              0              5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           107            894           3041          10461
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   160	Younes Strittmatter
    39	Sebastian Musslick
     4	younesStrittmatter
     1	Ankush1oo8

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 575

✅ 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 📄 👈

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

Pybehave: a hardware agnostic, Python-based framework for controlling behavioral neuroscience experiments
Submitting author: @theonlydvr
Handling editor: @sappelhoff (Active)
Reviewers: @tuliofalmeida, @alustig3
Similarity score: 0.7343

psychTestR: An R package for designing and conducting behavioural psychological experiments
Submitting author: @pmcharrison
Handling editor: @oliviaguest (Active)
Reviewers: @Cognitive-Modeller, @DivyaSeernani
Similarity score: 0.7090

ADaPT-ML: A Data Programming Template for Machine Learning
Submitting author: @nulberry
Handling editor: @jmschrei (Active)
Reviewers: @aaronpeikert, @wincowgerDEV
Similarity score: 0.7063

Neuropsydia.py: A Python Module for Creating Experiments, Tasks and Questionnaires
Submitting author: @DominiqueMakowski
Handling editor: @arokem (Retired)
Reviewers: @cMadan
Similarity score: 0.7063

s(ound)lab: An easy to learn Python package for designing and running psychoacoustic experiments.
Submitting author: @DrMarc
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @hadware, @sneakers-the-rat
Similarity score: 0.6964

⚠️ 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.

[samhforbes]

@editorialbot invite @sappelhoff as editor
@sappelhoff would you have capacity to handle this one?

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[sappelhoff]

@sappelhoff would you have capacity to handle this one?

@samhforbes yes I can take this on. Thanks for the invite.

[sappelhoff]

@editorialbot assign me as editor.

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @sappelhoff is now the editor

[sappelhoff]

@younesStrittmatter do you have suggestions for potential reviewers? Please just have potential conflicts of interest in mind.

If not, I will consult the automatic suggestions above, or will have a look at the JOSS reviewer database.

[younesStrittmatter]

Hello @sappelhoff,

Thank you for considering our submission.

I believe Josh de Leeuw (jodeleeuw) would be an ideal choice as a reviewer since this software is heavily based on his jsPsych framework, and he is an expert in online behavioral experiments.

I also think Hause Lin (hauselin) would be great.

If either of them can't review, I think Felix Henninger (felixhenninger) would also be a great fit.

[sappelhoff]

👋 @jodeleeuw @hauselin @FelixHenninger

would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[jodeleeuw]

I'd be happy to 👍

[hauselin]

I can review it.

[sappelhoff]

@editorialbot add @jodeleeuw as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@jodeleeuw added to the reviewers list!

[sappelhoff]

@editorialbot add @hauselin as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@hauselin added to the reviewers list!

[sappelhoff]

I have reached out to Felix Henninger via email and will wait a few days for a response on whether he would like to join as a peer-reviewer. If not I will start the review process with @hauselin and @jodeleeuw -- thanks for volunteering, both of you!

[sappelhoff]

I haven't heard back from @FelixHenninger, so I am going to start the review with two reviewers.

[sappelhoff]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #7703.