[PRE REVIEW]: The DynaGUI package

[whedon]

Submitting author: @benjaminbolling (Benjamin Edward Bolling) Repository: https://github.com/benjaminbolling/DynaGUI Version: v1.0.0 Editor: @majensen Reviewers: @Chilipp, @pythonpanda2

Author instructions

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

@benjaminbolling if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf

What happens now?

This submission is currently in a pre-review state which means we are waiting for an editor to be assigned and for them to find some reviewers for your submission. This may take anything between a few hours to a couple of weeks. Thanks for your patience :smile_cat:

You can help the editor by looking at this list of potential reviewers to identify individuals who might be able to review your submission (please start at the bottom of the list). Also, feel free to suggest individuals who are not on this list by mentioning their GitHub handles here.

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[danielskatz]

👋 @benjaminbolling - You also submitted https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/1855 - can you explain why there are 2 submissions?

[benjaminbolling]

Hi,

About the 2 versions - I uploaded one and got errors due to not having properly filled out affiliations. So I withdrew the first version (I thought), fixed the issue and re-uploaded.

/Benjamin

 👋 @benjaminbolling - You also submitted #1855 - can you explain why there are 2 submissions?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

[danielskatz]

ok, the other issue is still open but I will close it, and we can proceed here.

[danielskatz]

It looks like the references are not cited in the .md file, so while the paper compiles, there are no references found to be needed to be included in the paper.

[danielskatz]

It is clear that this software is useful and is being used. The question for JOSS is whether it is being used in research. One additional question here is who you expect would cite this package/submission?

[kyleniemeyer]

Hi @benjaminbolling, just wanted to follow up—can you respond to @danielskatz's last question?

[benjaminbolling]

Dear all,

first of all - I am sorry for taking an awful lot of time to respond but I have began working at a new position and was full with work to do.

I have now cited references in the .md file and slightly edited the text to do so.

The ones I would expect to cite this package or submission would be people working in control rooms at particle accelerators (perhaps other research or industrial facilities as well), including control room operators and physicists (such as accelerator physicists doing experiments with the accelerator itself and beamline scientists doing experiments on their side). The strength of this package is that it is open and dynamical. I intend to keep updating the package and will soon integrate the EPICS control system as well (after taking a course in EPICS programming in December).

Kind regards

[benjaminbolling]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[labarba]

@benjaminbolling — I am the Associate Editor in Chief on rotation this week. I've looked at your paper and your explanation above, and I ask for your patience, because this submission is unusual for JOSS and may be difficult to put through review.

It sounds like this is more of an infrastructure tool, used in conjunction with large-scale physics equipment. Even if this is clearly within the scope of scientific workflows, it's not the kind of research software that JOSS commonly publishes. For that reason, we don't have an editor in this topic, and we may have trouble identifying reviewers.

Please help us by looking over the reviewer list, and telling us if you think you identify any potential reviewers. Also, give us some clues about how a reviewer might go about checking the functionality of the software, without access to the instrumentation it is meant to work with.

[benjaminbolling]

I see, I will look through the reviewer list. The functionality of the software can be tested by selecting the so-called "Randomizer" control system, which I made for my own diagnostics/trials purposes when working from home and demonstration purposes as it only generates (not completely) random numerical values.

[benjaminbolling]

Dear all,

I wonder which reviewers have experience with Python and PyQt?

[majensen]

@whedon assign majensen as editor

[whedon]

OK, the editor is majensen

[majensen]

@benjaminbolling thanks for your submission. If you have thoughts about possible reviewers, please let me know in the thread. (They don't have to be on Github)

[majensen]

@andrewfowlie - would you be willing to review this paper for JOSS? I appreciate your consideration!

[majensen]

@Chilipp, @alexpghayes - would either of you be able to review this paper for JOSS? Please let me know on this thread -- thanks in advance!

[alexpghayes]

I don't think I have the expertise necessary to review this package.

[majensen]

@alexpghayes - no problem, thanks for the quick response

[andrewfowlie]

In general I'm very willing to review submissions to joss, but it's not my area of expertise either, so I cannot review it. I don't think I know anyone suitable so cannot offer an alternative either.

[Chilipp]

Thanks for asking @majensen! Unfortunately I am completely packed with work for December and beginning of January, so I won't be able to do a review until the 20th of January (approximately). But if this is okay for you, I am happy to review the software.

[majensen]

Thanks @andrewfowlie and @Chilipp - @Chilipp I get it! Are you ok if I add you as reviewer "in reserve", ie if I can find someone who is able to review sooner I let you off the hook?

[Chilipp]

Yes, sure @majensen. That's fine with me

[benjaminbolling]

Thank you for the replies and for the effort you put in to find a reviewer, and it is great that you have found someone who can review it. :)

6 dec. 2019 kl. 16:19 skrev Mark Jensen notifications@github.com:

 Thanks @andrewfowlie and @Chilipp - @Chilipp I get it! Are you ok if I add you as reviewer "in reserve", ie if I can find someone who is able to review sooner I let you off the hook?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

[majensen]

@benjaminbolling no problem -- are you ok with the review pending till late Jan?

[majensen]

@whedon assign @Chilipp as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, the reviewer is @Chilipp

[benjaminbolling]

I am fine with the review pending until January.

[majensen]

Hey @pythonpanda2 - might you be able to review this one?

[pythonpanda2]

@majensen

I am usually happy to review. Although this might be outside of my area of expertise.

[majensen]

@pythonpanda2 - much appreciated. My intuition (correct me if I'm wrong @benjaminbolling ) is this work addresses a need for a UI in a highly specialized field -- which makes it cool IMO and suitable for the journal*-- and it's really the UI functionality and the packaging that would take up the bulk of the review. The package has a "dummy backend" (Randomizer - see comment above), which I think will really aid the review, as @benjaminbolling points out.

@benjaminbolling if you can scare up a colleague with knowledge of the backend instruments who would be willing to comment in the review, that would be great, but it's not a show stopper AFAIC at this stage.

* - In this section of the docs: "JOSS publishes articles about research software. This definition includes software that ... supports the functioning of research instruments or the execution of research experiments[.] "

[majensen]

(@benjaminbolling -- I see you asked a question about reviewers with Qt experience. I have some passing familiarity with it; if we need some hardcore expertise, I'm confident we can find it.)

[majensen]

@whedon add @pythonpanda2 as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, @pythonpanda2 is now a reviewer

[majensen]

@whedon start review

[whedon]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/1942. Feel free to close this issue now!

[majensen]

All - our trusty bot has begun the review issue at #1942 ; please join the conversation there.