search

openjournals / joss-reviews

Reviews for the Journal of Open Source Software
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
721 stars 38 forks source link

[PRE REVIEW]: ShakeNBreak: Navigating the defect configurational landscape #4697

Closed editorialbot closed 2 years ago

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@ireaml<!--end-author-handle-- (Irea Mosquera-Lois) Repository: https://github.com/SMTG-UCL/ShakeNBreak Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@rkurchin<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @obaica, @mkhorton Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/6545bcc1a0439b16360ace684ac5aa25"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/6545bcc1a0439b16360ace684ac5aa25/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/6545bcc1a0439b16360ace684ac5aa25/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/6545bcc1a0439b16360ace684ac5aa25)

Author instructions

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

@ireaml if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

Editor instructions

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

@editorialbot commands
editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Hello human, 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 2 years ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/s41524-021-00537-1 is OK
- 10.1088/0953-8984/23/5/053201 is OK
- 10.1016/j.commatsci.2012.10.028 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-648X/aa680e is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.54.11169 is OK
- 10.1088/0953-8984/21/39/395502 is OK
- 10.1063/5.0007045 is OK
- 10.1021/acsenergylett.1c00380 is OK
- 10.1039/d2fd00043a is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2207.09862 is OK
- 10.1088/1674-4926/43/4/042101 is OK
- 10.1016/j.commatsci.2020.110086 is OK
- 10.1002/cpe.3505 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- doi:10.1524/zkri.220.5.567.65075 is INVALID (failed connection)
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2009.06.022 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2018.01.004 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2016.12.040 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2021.107946 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matt.2021.06.003 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
editorialbot commented 2 years ago 
Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.35 s (227.1 files/s, 73613.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          20           1170           3002          12297
SVG                              2              0             30           2251
YAML                            29             29             53            513
reStructuredText                18            235            290            371
TeX                              1              1              0            226
Markdown                         2             34              0            160
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0           4639            147
Bourne Shell                     2              8              8             84
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
TOML                             1              0              0              6
JSON                             1              0              0              1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            79           1489           8030          16091
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 800

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:

ireaml commented 2 years ago

Potential reviewers: mkhorton, obaica, mturiansky

ireaml 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

- 10.1038/s41524-021-00537-1 is OK
- 10.1088/0953-8984/23/5/053201 is OK
- 10.1016/j.commatsci.2012.10.028 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-648X/aa680e is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.54.11169 is OK
- 10.1088/0953-8984/21/39/395502 is OK
- 10.1524/zkri.220.5.567.65075 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2009.06.022 is OK
- 10.1063/5.0007045 is OK
- 10.1021/acsenergylett.1c00380 is OK
- 10.1039/d2fd00043a is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2207.09862 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2018.01.004 is OK
- 10.1016/j.commatsci.2016.12.040 is OK
- 10.1088/1674-4926/43/4/042101 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2021.107946 is OK
- 10.1016/j.matt.2021.06.003 is OK
- 10.1016/j.commatsci.2020.110086 is OK
- 10.1002/cpe.3505 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
arfon commented 2 years ago

@ireaml - thanks for your submission to JOSS. We're currently managing a large backlog of submissions and the editor most appropriate for your area is already rather busy.

For now, we will need to waitlist this paper and process it as the queue reduces. Thanks for your patience!

kthyng commented 2 years ago

@jgostick would you be able to edit this submission?

kthyng commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot invite @jgostick as editor

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

jgostick commented 2 years ago

I @kthyng, I'm sorry but I have learned from experience that I cannot do these sort of atomic/molecular simulation packages. I don't know the field at all.

kthyng commented 2 years ago

@jgostick That's ok! Sorry to ask — I can't always tell who fits well in different categories. I can't promise it won't happen again though... :)

kthyng commented 2 years ago

@ireaml — Sorry other editors are still busy!

rkurchin commented 2 years ago

I'm about to finish up another submission and would be happy to edit this one as it's right up my alley!

kthyng commented 2 years ago

@rkurchin That would be great! I'll add you.

kthyng commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot assign @rkurchin as editor

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Assigned! @rkurchin is now the editor

rkurchin commented 2 years ago

👋 @zhubonan and @VHchavez, would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

VHchavez commented 2 years ago

Hello @rkurchin & @ireaml, ShakeNBreak looks fantastic. I, unfortunately, don't have much experience with solids, nor have I run any calculations using the codes mentioned (VASP, CP2K, Quantum-Espresso, CASTEP & FHI-aims). Thus I don't think I'm fit for this review.

zhubonan commented 2 years ago

@rkurchin Thanks for the invitation😀, and this does fall under my expertise. Unfortunately, I am in the same group as the lead author (used to be), so I don't think I can review this.

rkurchin commented 2 years ago

No problem both, thanks for the quick response!

@zhubonan, if you have any other suggestions for good reviewers without conflicts of interest, feel free to pass them on!

zhubonan commented 2 years ago

@rkurchin I have two suggestions for reviewers (GitHub usernames): mkhorton, obaica.

Both of them should have no COI issue that I am aware of.

rkurchin commented 2 years ago

👋 @mkhorton and @obaica, would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

obaica commented 2 years ago

I am more than willing, and it is my honor to review this submission for JOSS.

What is the exact process we need to do next?

Thank you very much.

Gang Tang

Advanced Research Institute of Multidisciplinary Science Beijing Institute of Technology No. 5 Zhongguancun South Street, Haidian District Beijing, 100081 P. R. China. @. or @. Researchgate Homepage: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gang_Tanghttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gang_Tang33

发件人: Rachel Kurchin @.> 发送时间: 2022年9月29日 22:20 收件人: openjournals/joss-reviews @.> 抄送: Gang Tang @.>; Mention @.> 主题: Re: [openjournals/joss-reviews] [PRE REVIEW]: ShakeNBreak: Navigating the defect configurational landscape (Issue #4697)

👋 @mkhortonhttps://github.com/mkhorton and @obaicahttps://github.com/obaica, would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/4697#issuecomment-1262355850, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFM7IUQEOJ3X2JONMHK6KTTWAWQUFANCNFSM57IT6ORA. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

rkurchin commented 2 years ago

Great, thanks so much! I'll add you as a reviewer, and once we have at least two reviewers, a new issue will be opened where there will be a checklist to guide you through the process. If you want to learn more now, you can read more details here -> note particularly the criteria and checklist links on the navigation bar to the left.

rkurchin commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot add @obaica as reviewer

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

@obaica added to the reviewers list!

mkhorton commented 2 years ago

I would be happy to review! What's the current timeline requested for completion of reviews?

rkurchin commented 2 years ago

Great! We don't normally impose strict deadlines since the time commitment can vary a fair bit depending on how elaborate the software is and how much feedback you have as a reviewer, so I'm generally more interested that you can get started relatively soon (within a week or so) than exactly how long it will take. I think unless it's an unusually large/intricate piece of software, it would be good if you could get your first set of feedback (if any) turned around within a month or so, ballpark.

If that sounds okay, I can go ahead and add you as reviewer and get the review itself started!

mkhorton commented 2 years ago

A month sounds reasonable, thank you, by all means add me as a reviewer.

rkurchin commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot add @mkhorton as reviewer

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

@mkhorton added to the reviewers list!

rkurchin commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot start review

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/4817.