[REVIEW]: DFTK: A Julian approach for simulating electrons in solids

whedon commented 3 years ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@mfherbst@crstnbr<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @MasonProtter, @jagot Archive:

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/c74a09582eb08785dc4883f3c733e7a9"><img src="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/c74a09582eb08785dc4883f3c733e7a9/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/c74a09582eb08785dc4883f3c733e7a9/status.svg)](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/c74a09582eb08785dc4883f3c733e7a9)

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

@MasonProtter & @jagot, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @crstnbr 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 ✨

Review checklist for @MasonProtter

Conflict of interest

[x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JuliaCon conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JuliaCon code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@mfherbst) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] 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

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
[x] 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

Paper format

[x] Authors: Does the paper.tex file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
[x] Page limit: Is the page limit for extended abstracts respected by the submitted document?

Content

[x] Context: is the scientific context motivating the work correctly presented?
[x] Methodology: is the approach taken in the work justified, presented with enough details and reference to reproduce it?
[x] Results: are the results presented and compared to approaches with similar goals?

Review checklist for @jagot

Conflict of interest
[x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JuliaCon conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JuliaCon code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@mfherbst) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] 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

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
[x] 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

Paper format

[x] Authors: Does the paper.tex file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
[x] Page limit: Is the page limit for extended abstracts respected by the submitted document?

Content

[x] Context: is the scientific context motivating the work correctly presented?
[x] Methodology: is the approach taken in the work justified, presented with enough details and reference to reproduce it?
[x] Results: are the results presented and compared to approaches with similar goals?

whedon commented 3 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon commented 3 years ago

:wave: @JuliaCon/jcon-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-papers/pull/39

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-papers/pull/39, 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 commented 3 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1039/d0fd00048e is OK
- 10.1088/1361-648x/abcbdb is OK
- 10.1137/20M1332864 is OK
- 10.1038/natrevmats.2015.4 is OK
- 10.1038/ncomms11962 is OK
- 10.1021/jacs.7b02120 is OK
- 10.1038/nmat1752 is OK
- 10.1063/1.3148892 is OK
- 10.1021/acscentsci.8b00229 is OK
- 10.1063/1.5144261 is OK
- 10.1063/5.0005082 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.54.1703 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-648x/aa680e is OK
- 10.1016/j.commatsci.2012.10.028 is OK
- 10.1063/1.4704546 is OK
- 10.1002/qua.24259 is OK
- 10.1017/cbo9780511805769 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

carstenbauer commented 3 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon commented 3 years ago

I'm sorry @crstnbr, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editor-in-chiefs are allowed to do.

carstenbauer commented 3 years ago

@vchuravy ☝️

vchuravy commented 3 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon commented 3 years ago

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

whedon commented 3 years ago

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

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-papers/pull/40
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/jcon.00069
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

mfherbst commented 3 years ago

@vchuravy @crstnbr The doi does not seem to work yet. I suppose that is not intended after this time. Anything I can do about that?

carstenbauer commented 3 years ago

@arfon Do you know what's happening here? Is there anything on our side that we can do to fix this?

arfon commented 3 years ago

Hrm, weird. Let me take a look!

arfon commented 3 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon commented 3 years ago

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

arfon commented 3 years ago

OK, I think Whedon must have been having a bad day. Things look :+1: to me now. Can you verify?

mfherbst commented 3 years ago

Yes, to me as well, thanks @arfon :+1:.

carstenbauer commented 3 years ago

Looks good! Thanks for the help @arfon!

This completes the publication process. Congratulations @mfherbst!

whedon commented 3 years ago

:tada::tada::tada: Congratulations on your paper acceptance! :tada::tada::tada:

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/10.21105/jcon.00069/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/jcon.00069)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/jcon.00069">
  <img src="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/10.21105/jcon.00069/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/10.21105/jcon.00069/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/jcon.00069

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

JuliaCon Proceedings 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://forms.gle/yANMe4c9YmuW9MWcA
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.salsalabs.org/donate-to-jcon

mfherbst commented 3 years ago

Thanks for the reviews @jagot and @MasonProtter and for the editing @crstnbr !

JuliaCon / proceedings-review