[REVIEW]: AstronomyCalc: A python toolkit for teaching Astronomical Calculations and Data Analysis methods

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@sambit-giri@arm61<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @kelle, @AstrobioMike Archive: Pending Paper kind: software

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/2142b8d84b3cc2ce3b130b615a517eaa"><img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/2142b8d84b3cc2ce3b130b615a517eaa/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/2142b8d84b3cc2ce3b130b615a517eaa/status.svg)](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/2142b8d84b3cc2ce3b130b615a517eaa)

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

@kelle & @AstrobioMike, 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://openjournals.readthedocs.io/en/jose/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @arm61 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 @kelle

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

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 commented 1 month ago

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1108/20468251211179678 is OK
- 10.1109/CIDU.2012.6382200 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04 is OK
- 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/157 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4757-4145-2_7 is OK
- 10.1016/j.physrep.2006.08.002 is OK
- 10.1088/0034-4885/75/8/086901 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21293.x is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx2539 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stt1341 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv2679 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx649 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz1220 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz2224 is OK
- 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/058 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty1786 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv571 is OK
- 10.1088/1538-3873/129/974/045001 is OK
- 10.1007/s10686-013-9334-5 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201220873 is OK
- 10.1017/pasa.2018.37 is OK
- 10.1017/pasa.2012.007 is OK
- 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2017564 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Variation theory and the improvement of teaching a...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Introduction to cosmology
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Tomographic studies of the 21-cm signal during rei...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.04 s (1058.8 files/s, 237030.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jupyter Notebook                 9              0           6172           2208
Python                          16            219            382            607
TeX                              1             27              0            334
Markdown                         5             61              0            128
YAML                             4             19             26            110
reStructuredText                 9             46             38             95
make                             1              4              7              9
Bourne Shell                     2              6             17              7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            47            382           6642           3498
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   117  sambit-giri
     9  Sambit Kumar Giri

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 940

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

License info:

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

kelle commented 1 month ago

Review checklist for @kelle

Conflict of interest

[x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE 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 JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/sambit-giri/AstronomyCalc?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release?
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@sambit-giri) made substantial 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? (and documentation is sufficient?)
[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 the need for this software 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?
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] 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

Software paper

[x] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
[x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

sambit-giri commented 2 weeks ago

@kelle Thank you for the comments and suggestions in the issues list of the repository. I will start working on them.

openjournals / jose-reviews