JulienPeloton / s4cmb

Simulation of instrumental systematic effects in the context of CMB observations
GNU General Public License v3.0
9 stars 17 forks source link

JOSS paper #56

Open JulienPeloton opened 3 years ago

JulienPeloton commented 3 years ago

Following https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html, we can open a branch and push the paper.

Christovis commented 3 years ago

Hi Julien, a JOSS reviewer here. I read your well written paper and was just wondering whether I might have overlooked a part that describes how s4cmb "compares to other commonly-used packages in this research area". If there is nothing to compare to at the time of publication, it might be informative for a user to know that.

JulienPeloton commented 3 years ago

Hi @Christovis

Thanks for the feedback. As far as we know (including @gfabbian ), there is no alternative to s4cmb if one asks simultaneously:

In the field of CMB, the codes to simulate and study systematic effects are usually:

There is one notable exception, TOAST which is a general purpose framework to simulate and analyze CMB observations (Disclaimer: we know and collaborate with the authors). Even though one could potentially extend it to support a wide range of systematic effects, this is not their focus (rather efficient TOD manipulation on massively parallel architectures).

I've clarified the text in the paper (pushed). As far as we know, s4cmb is the only dedicated package that enables the study of a wide range of instrumental simulations, from the instrument to the sky map, while being publicly available. For more general purposes, including some instrumental systematic effect simulations, users might also consider the use of TOAST [ref], a software framework to simulate and process timestream data collected by telescopes focusing on efficient TOD manipulation on massively parallel architectures.

ref: https://github.com/hpc4cmb/toast/

Christovis commented 3 years ago

One more thing. The README could contain a clearer "Statement of need" in your "The package" section. I think the "Statement of need" in the paper is quite good, so that I would suggest to add a shortened version to the README (e.g. leaving out parts such as package dependencies and containerizing as you mention them later on...).

JulienPeloton commented 3 years ago

Thanks for the suggestion!