[Paper+1] PyCells for an Open Semiconductor Industry. Sepideh Alassi, Bertram Winter

[SepidehAlassi]

Hi,

I hope merging of the paper was without problem, however I believe the ./make_paper.sh file needs updates since it adds the EuroSciPy 2013 to the header of paper after it is built!!

Please let me know if there was a problem by submission.

Best, Sepideh

[katyhuff]

Independent Review Report

.. note:: Please be aware that all reviews are made public including the reviewer's name.

Reviewer: Kathryn Huff

Department/Center/Division: Department of Nuclear Engineering and Berkeley Institute for Data Science

Institution/University/Company: University of California, Berkeley

Field of interest / expertise: Nuclear Engineering, Python, C++

Country: USA

Article reviewed: PyCells for an Open Semiconductor Industry. Sepideh Alassi, Bertram Winter #47

GENERAL EVALUATION

Please rate the paper using the following criteria (please use the abbreviation to the right of the description)::

below doesn't meet standards for academic publication meets meets or exceeds the standards for academic publication n/a not applicable

• Quality of the approach: meets
• Quality of the writing: meets (minor typos noted and should be corrected)
• Quality of the figures/tables: meets

SPECIFIC EVALUATION

For the following questions, please respond with 'yes' or 'no'. If you answer 'no', please provide a brief, one- to two-sentence explanation.

• Is the code made publicly available and does the article sufficiently describe how to access it? We aim not to publish papers that essentially advertise proprietary software. Therefore, if the code is not publicly available, please provide a one- to two- sentence response to each of the following questions:

No. It is not clear from the current document where PyCells can be found, how to acquire it, or what its license is. The reference currently in place in the paper redirects to a secure login page.

• Does the article focus on a topic other than the features of the software itself?

No.

• Can the majority of statements made be externally validated (i.e., without the use of the software)?

No.

• Is the information presented of interest to readers other than those at whom the software is aimed?

Yes.

• Is there any other aspect of the article that would justify including it despite the fact that the code isn't available?

No.

• Does the article discuss the reasons the software is closed?

No. In fact, it indicates the opposite. The introduction seems to hint that the software is open and available. Perhaps this is the case. However, the location of the software or how to access it is not obvious in the article. So, this article may simply need to be updated to reflect the location of the PyCells software.

• Does the article present the problem in an appropriate context? Specifically, does it:
  • explain why the problem is important,
  • describe in which situations it arises,
  • outline relevant previous work,
  • provide background information for non-experts

Yes.

• Is the content of the paper accessible to a computational scientist with no specific knowledge in the given field?

Yes. I noted some specific instances in which jargon was confusing. Those instances should be fixed. Once that is done, the paper will be extremely accessible to a computational scientists from a different field.

• Does the paper describe a well-formulated scientific or technical achievement?

Yes. (the production of a library and improvement of a gui for circuit design)

• Are the technical and scientific decisions well-motivated and clearly explained?

Yes

• Are the code examples (if any) sound, clear, and well-written?

Yes

• Is the paper factual correct?

Probably. (location of code not clear, so this cannot be confirmed.)

• Is the language and grammar of sufficient quality?

Yes

• Are the conclusions justified?

Yes, if the claims about the software performance and functionality are true, then the conclusion (this software should make circuit design easier) is true.

• Is prior work properly and fully cited?

I don't think so. The references are very limited. I am not particularly aware of prior work, but some efforts are discussed without being referenced. This should be improved.

• Should any part of the article be shortened or expanded? Please explain.

The discussion of optimizing the software should be discussed in more specific detail.

• In your view, is the paper fit for publication in the conference proceedings? Please suggest specific improvements and indicate whether you think the article needs a significant rewrite (rather than a minor revision).

If it turns out that the the software is open, then yes, this is fit for publication and the needed changes are minor. The most important needed change in that case is : list and cite the location of the software, its documentation, and its license.

If the software is proprietary, then no, it is not fit for publication.