[REVIEW]: Mechkit: A continuum mechanics toolkit in Python

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@JulianKarlBauer@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @nicoguaro, @likask, @lizarett Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7185691

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5bc306fb511a596eb25e2032a39b4baa"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5bc306fb511a596eb25e2032a39b4baa/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5bc306fb511a596eb25e2032a39b4baa/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5bc306fb511a596eb25e2032a39b4baa)

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

@nicoguaro & @likask & @lizarett, 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://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 ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @nicoguaro

📝 Checklist for @likask

📝 Checklist for @lizarett

JulianKarlBauer commented 2 years ago

@nicoguaro you have some boxes unticked, can you have a look if there are any updates, or provide points that still need to be addressed?

All of them have been addressed except for the "state of the field". @JulianKarlBauer mentioned something before about it, but I don't see anything about it in the compiled version of the paper.

Sorry, I had not yet merged pull request mentioned above. After having merged it, are your concerns addressed @nicoguaro ?

JulianKarlBauer commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

JulianKarlBauer commented 2 years ago

point_rightpage_facing_up Download article proof page_facing_up View article proof on GitHub page_facing_up point_left

Branch "master" had not been merged to branch "paper" from which editorialbot is compiling...

JulianKarlBauer commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

nicoguaro commented 2 years ago

Sorry, I had not yet merged pull request mentioned above. After having merged it, are your concerns addressed @nicoguaro ?

Yes.

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman, I have marked all the boxes now and recommend the publication.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@likask can you check the response to your comments? :point_up: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/4389#issuecomment-1212835958

likask commented 2 years ago

@JulianKarlBauer @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

Hi, I am happy from your modifications. Green light from me.

Yes, some time ago I was working on second-order continuum description, dealing with third order tensors was painful in vector notation.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

Great @likask can you check those last boxes? :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/4389#issuecomment-1173047773

JulianKarlBauer commented 2 years ago

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman It seems that all boxes are ticked now :)

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1177/10812865211057602 is OK
- 10.1016/0020-7225(84)90090-9 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-19566-7 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4757-1275-9 is OK
- 10.1093/qjmam/43.1.15 is OK
- 10.1016/0022-5096(92)90029-2 is OK
- 10.1088/978-0-7503-1454-1 is OK
- 10.1016/0020-7225(70)90024-8 is OK
- 10.1122/1.549945 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4679756 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1173115 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5938012 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5564818 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.21468/scipostphyslectnotes.5 may be a valid DOI for title: Efficient numerical simulations with tensor networks: Tensor Network Python (TeNPy)

INVALID DOIs

- None

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@JulianKarlBauer can you check that potentially missing DOI? :point_up:

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

JulianKarlBauer commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1177/10812865211057602 is OK
- 10.1016/0020-7225(84)90090-9 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-19566-7 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4757-1275-9 is OK
- 10.1093/qjmam/43.1.15 is OK
- 10.1016/0022-5096(92)90029-2 is OK
- 10.1088/978-0-7503-1454-1 is OK
- 10.1016/0020-7225(70)90024-8 is OK
- 10.1122/1.549945 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4679756 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1173115 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5938012 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5564818 is OK
- 10.21468/SciPostPhysLectNotes.5 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

JulianKarlBauer commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

JulianKarlBauer commented 2 years ago

@JulianKarlBauer can you check that potentially missing DOI? point_up

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Thank you! Sorry I could have checked the references on my own... Repeated the checks and build.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@JulianKarlBauer I read your paper and have two remaining very minor points:

[x] Please add city names to all affiliations
[x] For several ... , exist but mainly... it looks like the comma should go after exist (but feel free to disagree)

JulianKarlBauer commented 2 years ago

[x] Please add city names to all affiliations
[x] For several ... , exist but mainly... it looks like the comma should go after exist (but feel free to disagree)

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Thank you! Fixed both.

JulianKarlBauer commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 2 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 2 years ago

@JulianKarlBauer Great, looks like we are good to proceed. At this point can you please:

[x] Archive a copy of the reviewed work on ZENODO. We recommend that you do so for a newly minted/tagged release, however this is up to you. Some find these automated steps useful: https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/archiving-a-github-repository/referencing-and-citing-content
[x] Once the archive is created please check if the title and the author names match those of the paper. You may need to manually edit your archive entry to change the title/author entries. You can also check if you can have it refer to the license properly (or leave it as Other(Open) since the archived content contains the license too). Next you may wish to add author ORCID information too. The most important things though are the title and author list.
[x] Once the above is complete please report back here with the archive DOI and which version tag we should use, i.e. are we still at v0.3.9 or have you created a new release.

Thanks.

JulianKarlBauer commented 2 years ago

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Perfect, thank you for the detailed instructions. I created release v0.4.0 with DOI https://zenodo.org/record/7185691 and manually edited the title, author, license and added a funding note.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot set v0.4.0 as version

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Done! version is now v0.4.0

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7185691 as archive

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7185691

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@JulianKarlBauer Looks like we are all set. :rocket:

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1177/10812865211057602 is OK
- 10.1016/0020-7225(84)90090-9 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-19566-7 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4757-1275-9 is OK
- 10.1093/qjmam/43.1.15 is OK
- 10.1016/0022-5096(92)90029-2 is OK
- 10.1088/978-0-7503-1454-1 is OK
- 10.1016/0020-7225(70)90024-8 is OK
- 10.1122/1.549945 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4679756 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1173115 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5938012 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5564818 is OK
- 10.21468/SciPostPhysLectNotes.5 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

Check final proof :point_right::page_facing_up: Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/3607, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

editorialbot 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/3608
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04389
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

kthyng commented 2 years ago

Congratulations on your new publication to @JulianKarlBauer! Many thanks to editor @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman and reviewers @nicoguaro, @likask, and @lizarett for your time, hard work, and expertise!!

editorialbot 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.04389/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04389)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04389">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04389/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04389/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04389

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The 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

JulianKarlBauer commented 2 years ago

(: thanks for the great experience of publishing in JOSS. Thank you @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman for your efforts in moderation! Thanks to the reviewers @nicoguaro @likask @lizarett for your valuable suggestions and dedication and thank you @kthyng for finalizing the process.

openjournals / joss-reviews