[REVIEW]: LEGWORK: A python package for computing the evolution and detectability of stellar-origin gravitational-wave sources with space-based detectors

whedon commented 2 years ago

Submitting author: @TomWagg (Thomas Wagg) Repository: https://github.com/TeamLEGWORK/LEGWORK Version: v0.1.3 Editor: @arfon Reviewer: @dbkeitel, @cmbiwer Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5942553

: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/82477c099f1c94f12e11cc398ece6f8d"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/82477c099f1c94f12e11cc398ece6f8d/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/82477c099f1c94f12e11cc398ece6f8d/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/82477c099f1c94f12e11cc398ece6f8d)

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

@dbkeitel & @cmbiwer, 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 @arfon 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 @dbkeitel

✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨

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 (@TomWagg) 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 @cmbiwer

✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨

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 (@TomWagg) 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?

arfon commented 2 years ago

@TomWagg – At this point could you make a new release of this software that includes the changes that have resulted from this review. Then, please make an archive of the software in Zenodo/figshare/other service and update this thread with the DOI of the archive? For the Zenodo/figshare archive, please make sure that:

The title of the archive is the same as the JOSS paper title
That the authors of the archive are the same as the JOSS paper authors

I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

TomWagg commented 2 years ago

Exciting @arfon! Here is the information you asked for (and I should also thank @dbkeitel for explaining how to link GitHub to Zenodo in an issue a while ago!!)

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5942553
New release is here: https://github.com/TeamLEGWORK/LEGWORK/releases/tag/v0.3.0
Zenodo archive is here: https://zenodo.org/record/5942553

arfon commented 2 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.5942553 as archive

whedon commented 2 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.5942553 is the archive.

arfon commented 2 years ago

@whedon recommend-accept from branch joss

whedon commented 2 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/287307a0 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.024003 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty2842 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.064030 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.75.042003 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.103012 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-6382/aa85fa is OK
- 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/12/026 is OK
- 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/04/001 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043513 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361:20010683 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/717/2/1006 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201014827 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15574.x is OK
- 10.1086/675721 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/816 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/131 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx910 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8557 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.191103 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx1285 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aae587 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty3440 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/202037764 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty2035 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz2834 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0e6a is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5b9a is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa002 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/abab99 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8ac9 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/abae66 is OK
- 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa039 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac173e is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/32/1/015014 is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035010 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRev.131.435 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B1224 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.57.4535 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.124021 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.67.103001 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.082005 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-6382/ab1101 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.063021 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.123021 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon commented 2 years ago

:wave: @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/2925

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/2925, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true from branch joss

arfon commented 2 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true from branch joss

whedon commented 2 years ago

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

whedon commented 2 years ago

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

whedon commented 2 years ago

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/2926
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03998
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

arfon commented 2 years ago

@dbkeitel, @cmbiwer – many thanks for your reviews here! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you ✨

@TomWagg – your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS :zap::rocket::boom:

When your associated AAS paper is accepted and published, we should update the JOSS paper here to add the DOI.

whedon commented 2 years ago

:tada::tada::tada: Congratulations on your paper acceptance! :tada::tada::tada:

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03998/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03998)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03998">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03998/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03998/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03998

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

TomWagg commented 2 years ago

How exciting! 🎉🥳

Thank you all so much for your efforts in reviewing LEGWORK. The package now has many improvements thanks to your comments and we really appreciate it!

And yes @arfon absolutely, we'll add a comment here once we are done with the Apj review.

arfon commented 2 years ago

:wave: @TomWagg – looks like we have the AAS DOI now. I've opened a PR on the paper here https://github.com/TeamLEGWORK/LEGWORK/pull/95 but need you to verify that the journal name is correct.

TomWagg commented 2 years ago

Thanks @arfon! I've updated the journal name to Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series and merged the PR!

arfon commented 2 years ago

Thanks @arfon! I've updated the journal name to Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series and merged the PR!

👍 thanks. The paper is updated now to include the crosslink to APJSS although it may take a few hours to show as updated on the JOSS site.

openjournals / joss-reviews