[REVIEW]: PXO (Poly-XTAL Operations): Free MATLAB codebase to generate and analyse complex 2D grain structures

whedon commented 3 years ago

Submitting author: @SunilAnandatheertha (sunil anandatheertha) Repository: https://github.com/SunilAnandatheertha/PXO Version: V10.1.1 Editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Reviewer: @yangbai90, @ksyang2013, @littlelazy6 Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5142160

:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7e7206fe84bfcc3062f1a76f68bea3b1"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7e7206fe84bfcc3062f1a76f68bea3b1/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7e7206fe84bfcc3062f1a76f68bea3b1/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7e7206fe84bfcc3062f1a76f68bea3b1)

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

@yangbai90 & @ksyang2013 & @littlelazy6, 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 @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman 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 @yangbai90

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS 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] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@SunilAnandatheertha) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

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 functionality 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] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

Review checklist for @ksyang2013

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS 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] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@SunilAnandatheertha) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

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 functionality 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] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

Review checklist for @littlelazy6

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS 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] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@SunilAnandatheertha) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

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 functionality 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] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

SunilAnandatheertha commented 3 years ago

@littlelazy6

Initial texture can be defined in multiple ways.

From assigning the EBSD acquired mean grain orientations to each grains by random sampling.
From generating orientation samples for a give texture represented in MTEX.
From generating a texture model in MTEX (for Voronoi tessellations) and then extracting the orientations from it. These are included in a different repository and the relavant paper will be submitted soon. It will contain exporting the VT grain structures to ABAQUS and meshing in ABAQUS using custom python scripts.

SunilAnandatheertha commented 3 years ago

@ksyang2013 Paper has been updated accordingly. Tutorials has been added and the test case is retained (here: https://github.com/SunilAnandatheertha/PXO/wiki/Tutorials-and-test-cases)

SunilAnandatheertha commented 3 years ago

@whedon commands

whedon commented 3 years ago

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors

# List of reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers

EDITORIAL TASKS

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf

# Compile the paper from alternative branch
@whedon generate pdf from branch custom-branch-name

# Ask Whedon to check the references for missing DOIs
@whedon check references

# Ask Whedon to check repository statistics for the submitted software
@whedon check repository

littlelazy6 commented 3 years ago

@littlelazy6

Initial texture can be defined in multiple ways.

From assigning the EBSD acquired mean grain orientations to each grains by random sampling.

From generating orientation samples for a give texture represented in MTEX.

From generating a texture model in MTEX (for Voronoi tessellations) and then extracting the orientations from it. These are included in a different repository and the relavant paper will be submitted soon. It will contain exporting the VT grain structures to ABAQUS and meshing in ABAQUS using custom python scripts.

Thanks for the detailed response. I have checked and convinced the capability. Look forwards to the filter (plugin) working with DREAM3D for more advanced application such as 3D models. @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman I have updated the review checkpoints. Please let me know if there are any other tasks on my side.

SunilAnandatheertha commented 3 years ago

@yangbai90 @littlelazy6 I thank you for the review, your comments and suggestions for improvement.

Sincerely Sunil

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 3 years ago

@whedon re-invite @ksyang2013 as reviewer

whedon commented 3 years ago

OK, the reviewer has been re-invited.

@ksyang2013 please accept the invite by clicking this link: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 3 years ago

@ksyang2013 I have sent you another inviting hoping this might work. If it doesn't work we will look into this. As an alternative you can also copy the components at the top of this issue and tick them in a normal comment window here.

ksyang2013 commented 3 years ago

Thank you! It works now!

Kesong YANG, Ph.D.

Associate Professor, Department of NanoEngineering, Program of Materials Science and Engineering, Center for Memory and Recording Research (CMRR), University of California San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive, Mail Code 0448 La Jolla, CA 92093-0448, USA

Office: SME 244H Tel: (858) 534-2514 E-mail: @.***
http://materials.ucsd.edu http://materials.ucsd.edu/

On Jul 7, 2021, at 6:25 AM, Kevin Mattheus Moerman @.***> wrote:

@ksyang2013 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_ksyang2013&d=DwMCaQ&c=-35OiAkTchMrZOngvJPOeA&r=45Q83Sy6H1-CqyoctWnD6w&m=wi-ooKpFOoTAM7hN4kalBQUlvooT2k_pCDwL5j-cS4I&s=HIs683BIuZSrfydQT85tMtDgyrwYyC4M_UHqwBgjFa0&e= I have sent you another inviting hoping this might work. If it doesn't work we will look into this. As an alternative you can also copy the components at the top of this issue and tick them in a normal comment window here.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_openjournals_joss-2Dreviews_issues_3190-23issuecomment-2D875601897&d=DwMCaQ&c=-35OiAkTchMrZOngvJPOeA&r=45Q83Sy6H1-CqyoctWnD6w&m=wi-ooKpFOoTAM7hN4kalBQUlvooT2k_pCDwL5j-cS4I&s=mfIUOFBPS5wMKdV7BKAmscamm8lxDaZToGhOHOfKTDM&e=, or unsubscribe https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_notifications_unsubscribe-2Dauth_AEHTG3HW2AUEXK2HCO5P2PTTWRIVXANCNFSM43EGUGCA&d=DwMCaQ&c=-35OiAkTchMrZOngvJPOeA&r=45Q83Sy6H1-CqyoctWnD6w&m=wi-ooKpFOoTAM7hN4kalBQUlvooT2k_pCDwL5j-cS4I&s=DZygqjJKaR89YSia09oN90DH8w37wHOYRbKLIebEW-s&e=.

ksyang2013 commented 3 years ago

@SunilAnandatheertha https://github.com/SunilAnandatheertha

Thanks for updates. I am checking the following items:

Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.

Even it is stated in README.md https://github.com/SunilAnandatheertha/PXO#readme, it is still desired to put an instruction like “To use PXO, no installation is needed yet. Just add the folder to MATLAB path and start using.” In a document like “INSTALL.txt”. Make it easy to follow ...

Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified? Have you provided a script that can help check the authors’ test? Maybe one simple test with core function is enough.

I understood you have put "Test Case 01 https://github.com/SunilAnandatheertha/PXO/wiki/PXO-to-MTEX-to-ABAQUS-01:” in wiki, but I did meet some problems when running, like below:

50x50.||.m:2000/2000. Elapsed time is 0.592793 seconds. currentplot: 500 Error using matlab.graphics.internal.name (line 112) Cannot create output file '/Users/xxx/Documents/MATLAB/mcodes/results/plots/microstructure_withgb/500mcs.jpeg'.

Error in print (line 71) pj = matlab.graphics.internal.name( pj );

Error in plotgrainstructure2d (line 80) print('-djpeg100',strcat(pwd, '\results\plots\microstructure_withgb','\', strcat(num2str(rset*txtwriteint),'mcs'),'.jpeg'))

Error in gss2d (line 15) [CFN] = plotgrainstructure2d(1, 1, 1, 998);

Thanks,

Kesong YANG, Ph.D.

Associate Professor, Department of NanoEngineering, Program of Materials Science and Engineering, Center for Memory and Recording Research (CMRR), University of California San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive, Mail Code 0448 La Jolla, CA 92093-0448, USA

Office: SME 244H Tel: (858) 534-2514 E-mail: @.***
http://materials.ucsd.edu http://materials.ucsd.edu/

On Jun 30, 2021, at 6:13 AM, Sunil Anandatheertha @.***> wrote:

@ksyang2013 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_ksyang2013&d=DwMCaQ&c=-35OiAkTchMrZOngvJPOeA&r=45Q83Sy6H1-CqyoctWnD6w&m=WMyrn0FMMABF_U2jDkdLhSC8uguLN6nAnCd28lLGBcM&s=kArBlyX2-x9xdszlKqNJh_JWnNfP5pTlyj1Ywm8RD7k&e= Paper has been updated accordingly. Tutorials has been added and the test case is retained (here: https://github.com/SunilAnandatheertha/PXO/wiki/Tutorials-and-test-cases https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_SunilAnandatheertha_PXO_wiki_Tutorials-2Dand-2Dtest-2Dcases&d=DwMCaQ&c=-35OiAkTchMrZOngvJPOeA&r=45Q83Sy6H1-CqyoctWnD6w&m=WMyrn0FMMABF_U2jDkdLhSC8uguLN6nAnCd28lLGBcM&s=-Wo3XvEytdOlWNL247BIwFol5UlFWvGlW5j_ejcrR3o&e=)

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_openjournals_joss-2Dreviews_issues_3190-23issuecomment-2D871393591&d=DwMCaQ&c=-35OiAkTchMrZOngvJPOeA&r=45Q83Sy6H1-CqyoctWnD6w&m=WMyrn0FMMABF_U2jDkdLhSC8uguLN6nAnCd28lLGBcM&s=T3yYwye1zAB9NBzV_6QY-sl38YSThjjBbZINKQqBmDw&e=, or unsubscribe https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_notifications_unsubscribe-2Dauth_AEHTG3EW7PMGW6UCDHMJRKLTVMKBFANCNFSM43EGUGCA&d=DwMCaQ&c=-35OiAkTchMrZOngvJPOeA&r=45Q83Sy6H1-CqyoctWnD6w&m=WMyrn0FMMABF_U2jDkdLhSC8uguLN6nAnCd28lLGBcM&s=a5r0_ljzYjCo8gOs7_c0DYqtxRPEL3KhiNnN2H29u7Q&e=.

SunilAnandatheertha commented 3 years ago

@ksyang2013

Thank you for the review. I have updated the codes and documentation accordingly.

Installation instructions have been detailed in the file “installation_instructions.txt” available in the main repository root directory. A package manager will be developed in the future. It is also provided in the page: https://github.com/SunilAnandatheertha/PXO/wiki/Installation-instructions.

Automated testing can be carried out as outlined in [https://github.com/SunilAnandatheertha/PXO/wiki/Automated-test---1].

It appears the problem “matlab.graphics.internal.name (line 112)” may be because, MATLAB is not reading a full directory on the computer. The repository has only been tested on Windows 10, so this could be a operating system related issue. Though I am incorporating operating system checking, it is planned to be integrated into PXO distribution in future releases. Could you please copy the repository into a major directory such as “C:\PXO” or “D:\PXO” and run the automated test.

Sincerely Sunil

SunilAnandatheertha commented 3 years ago

@ksyang2013 Please also ensure that the working directory has full write access.

ksyang2013 commented 3 years ago

@SunilAnandatheertha Great! Thanks for the update! I am glad to recommend publishing the article and code.

SunilAnandatheertha commented 3 years ago

@ksyang2013 Thank you for the review, comments and suggestions.

SunilAnandatheertha commented 3 years ago

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Hi Kevin. I would like to make a few grammatical changes to the paper. Also, over time, I have updated the links to the repository wiki page, and these links need to be updated in the paper. The paper title has "a free MATLAB codebase". I would like to remove the word "free", as being open source already implies it. Am I permitted to do these changes. Thank you.

Sincerley Sunil

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 3 years ago

@SunilAnandatheertha yes you can make these changes. You can update the paper in your repository as you see fit and then call @whedon generate pdf here to update it. Once you've updated the title I can amend it for this review issue too.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 3 years ago

@yangbai90 @littlelazy6 thanks for your review efforts! Greatly appreciated. I see you have all boxes ticked. Can you please formally respond if you recommend acceptance in JOSS? Thanks

SunilAnandatheertha commented 3 years ago

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Thank you. I will update here soon

SunilAnandatheertha commented 3 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 3 years ago

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

SunilAnandatheertha commented 3 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 3 years ago

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

SunilAnandatheertha commented 3 years ago

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Hi Kevin, I have updated the paper.

littlelazy6 commented 3 years ago

@SunilAnandatheertha I have read the updated paper. Regarding lines 47 to 53, a detailed discussion on VT/ EBSD based CPFEM and the relative capabilities of software like DREAM3D and Neper is included in this work, for your interest https://doi.org/10.1177/14644207211010836.

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman After recent documentation updates, I have confirmed the functions of PXO, and think this is a useful and handy tool for microstructural evolution and it fills the gap between other FE simulations tools. I recommend this work to be published in JOSS.

SunilAnandatheertha commented 3 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 3 years ago

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

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 3 years ago

@yangbai90 thanks again for your help here. I see you have all boxes ticked. Can you please formally respond if you recommend acceptance in JOSS? Thanks

yangbai90 commented 3 years ago

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Hello, Kevin. The document is well-written and worthy of publication. As a result, I'd recommend acceptance. BR Yang

SunilAnandatheertha commented 3 years ago

@yangbai90 @ksyang2013 @littlelazy6 thank you so much for your review and suggestions. @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman thank you for moderating the review process. Kindly let me know if I should be doing anything.

Sincerely Sunil

danielskatz commented 3 years ago

👋 @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman - this looks like it's ready for you to move to the final steps

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 3 years ago

@SunilAnandatheertha looks like we are ready for the final steps.

I have just read your paper and provide the following required minor changes:

[x] Check ...developed for Ising model..., perhaps this should read ...developed for the Ising model...
[x] Check ... is used to simulate grain growth over a simplified manner, and..., should this read ... is used to simulate grain growth in a simplified manner, and...?
[x] Check emperical this should read empirical
[x] Check softwares this should read software
[x] Check relavant this should read relevant
[x] Check powerfull this should read powerful
[x] Check the use of the acronym VT for Voronoi. I propose you either remove it and not use it, or use it but introduce it when Voronoi is first mentioned and then use it after (currently Voronoi is used several times in full before the acronym is used). I recommend minimising acronym use where possible but I leave this up to you.
[x] The same as above about the acronym for Monte-Carlo simulations (MCS). Again I recommend removing it but if used use it consistently.
[x] Check ...to study material’s phase-transitioned..., perhaps this should read ...to study a material’s phase-transitioned...
[x] Check Computational materials scientists..., should this read Computational material scientists...
[x] The following sounds like it needs to be rephrased ...parametric spatially gradient physically realistic grain structures..., perhaps this sounds clearer/better: ...parametric representations and spatial gradients of physically realistic grain structures.... Please adjust as you see fit.
[x] Consider rephrasing Similar needs are also believed to be present in computational geology., in particular to avoid the use of the word believed. Perhaps something like the following would be better?:Furthermore, such methods are also relevant to computational geology. `
[x] The acronym FEA is not explained please fix or avoid its use. Again it is also used in full as finite element analysis, after its first use so please be consistent again or remove.
[x] Check the use of PXO and ‘PXO’, please choose one style and use it throughout. Furthermore, it looks like you are trying to use it as PXO, but perhaps you are using the wrong style of inverted commas, if you want this style use
```
`PXO`
```
[x] Check ...generated grain structure..., it looks like this should read ...generated grain structures....
[x] Similarly add an s to ...of VT grain structure. so it reads ...of VT grain structures..
[x] documentations -> documentation
[x] easy to use -> easy-to-use
[x] ...ample documentation and growing scientific ... -> ...ample documentation, and a growing scientific ...
[x] ...As PXO offers tool to export ... -> ...As PXO offers a tool to export ...
[x] ...complex grain87structure distribution. -> ...complex grain87structure distributions.
[x] Above figure shows... -> The above figure shows...
[x] ...to help the user in getting started. -> ...to help users to get started.
[x] ... resource offered by the institutions ... -> ...resources offered by the following institutions: ...
[x] In relation to PESIT (now called as PES University) can you simply use just the latest name?
[x] Your paper is about to be accepted in JOSS. We recommend you thoroughly proofread the paper yourself once more at this point and also verify the author names and affiliations are accurate, as well as the acknowledgements. I also did not comment to much on the use of commas, however some of the longer sentences can likely benefit from this so review these also.

Once you have processed the above please update the paper here by calling @whedon generate pdf, next please complete the following:

[x] Can you archive a copy of the software on ZENODO and report back here with the DOI or the archived version? You can do this manually or you can follow these steps: https://guides.github.com/activities/citable-code/
[x] Once the archive is created check that the archive meta data, like the title, and the authors, matches those of the paper. You may need to manually edit this information. You can also add ORCID profile links for all authors at this point if not present already.
[x] Can you confirm what the published version tag should be? Is it still at 10.0.2?

SunilAnandatheertha commented 3 years ago

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Thank you for the valuable suggestions. I will update accordingly soon.

SunilAnandatheertha commented 3 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 3 years ago

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

SunilAnandatheertha commented 3 years ago

Please use the new PXO-10.1.0

SunilAnandatheertha commented 3 years ago

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Hi kevin, I am unable to tick the checks above. I have tried in both recent browsers: Google Chrome and Edge

danielskatz commented 3 years ago

@whedon re-invite @SunilAnandatheertha as reviewer

whedon commented 3 years ago

OK, the reviewer has been re-invited.

@sunilanandatheertha please accept the invite by clicking this link: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

danielskatz commented 3 years ago

@SunilAnandatheertha - ☝️ should solve your problem

SunilAnandatheertha commented 3 years ago

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman The DOI of the archived version is: 10.5281/zenodo.5117452

@danielskatz Thank you for this. It worked.

SunilAnandatheertha commented 3 years ago

Zenodo upload is at: https://zenodo.org/record/5117452

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 3 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.5117452 as archive

whedon commented 3 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.5117452 is the archive.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 3 years ago

@SunilAnandatheertha

Thanks for implementing many of those points

[x] Check above several boxes remain unticked
[x] Please edit the ZENODO archive so that the license matches your BSD 3-Clause License.
[x] On the ZENODO archive please remove the Rights holder(s) field
[x] The version tag should be one of the following: https://github.com/SunilAnandatheertha/PXO/tags so I take it you mean V10.1.0.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 3 years ago

@whedon set V10.1.0 as version

whedon commented 3 years ago

OK. V10.1.0 is the version.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 3 years ago

@SunilAnandatheertha can you work on the remaining points? I unticked boxes that appeared to not be completed.

SunilAnandatheertha commented 3 years ago

Hi, please, I will follow up soon. Thank you.

SunilAnandatheertha commented 3 years ago

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Hi, I have noted, there were files from some of my other repositories in PXO, which I have removed. I have made a new release V10.1.1 and updated the Zenado accordingly (new DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5142160), and checked the new repository for dependency errors and it works fine. Could I kindly request you to please use this instead of the older one.

I had updated the paper, but I had missed out checking a few boxes. However, now, I am unable to tick the check boxes.

Thank you Sunil

openjournals / joss-reviews