[REVIEW]: Pyccel: a Python-to-X transpiler for scientific high-performance computing

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@yguclu@danielskatz<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @aholmes, @IgorBaratta, @boegel Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7711108

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8b565b8f36e1d0cccb3c749ff22857e3"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8b565b8f36e1d0cccb3c749ff22857e3/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8b565b8f36e1d0cccb3c749ff22857e3/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8b565b8f36e1d0cccb3c749ff22857e3)

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

@aholmes & @IgorBaratta & @boegel, 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 @danielskatz 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 @aholmes

📝 Checklist for @boegel

📝 Checklist for @IgorBaratta

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

@boegel - specifically, if you can take a look at the three items you haven't yet checked off your list, I would appreciate it

boegel commented 1 year ago

My sincere apologies for not coming back to this sooner. I've completed my review now, thanks a lot to @yguclu and co for the additional effort!

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

Thanks @boegel and all reviewers!

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

👋 @yguclu - At this point could you:

[ ] Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here.
[ ] Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g., figshare, an institutional repository)
[ ] Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) has the correct metadata. This includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it). You may also add the authors' ORCID.
[ ] Please list the DOI of the archived version here.

I can then move forward with generating a proof of the full submission, which I will then proofread, and then we can move forward to acceptance and publication

EmilyBourne commented 1 year ago

The tagged version is v1.7.2

yguclu commented 1 year ago

The tagged version is v1.7.2

Indeed. The latest Pyccel version on PyPI is now 1.7.3, but the benchmarks in the article were run with version 1.7.2. Hence we stick to 1.7.2.

EmilyBourne commented 1 year ago

[x] Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here.
[x] Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g., figshare, an institutional repository)
[x] Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) has the correct metadata. This includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it). You may also add the authors' ORCID.
[x] Please list the DOI of the archived version here.

EmilyBourne commented 1 year ago

The DOI of the archived version is : https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7711108

EmilyBourne commented 1 year ago

@danielskatz Our checklist is now complete. Thank you for your help with the review process. And thanks to the reviewers for their time and helpful interactions.

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot set v1.7.2 as version

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Done! version is now v1.7.2

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7711108 as archive

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7711108

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

this will generate the final proof that I will then check over and perhaps get back to you about

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/MCSE.2010.118 is OK
- 10.1088/1749-4680/8/1/014001 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ascom.2014.12.001 is OK
- 10.1145/1565824.1565827 is OK
- 10.1145/1238844.1238856 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:wave: @openjournals/csism-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/4039, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

@yguclu and @EmilyBourne - I've suggested some minor changes in https://github.com/pyccel/pyccel/pull/1341 - please merge this, or let me know what you disagree with, then we can proceed to publication.

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

hopefully final check

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/MCSE.2010.118 is OK
- 10.1088/1749-4680/8/1/014001 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ascom.2014.12.001 is OK
- 10.1145/1565824.1565827 is OK
- 10.1145/1238844.1238856 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:wave: @openjournals/csism-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/4040, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot commented 1 year 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/4041
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04991
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

Congratulations to @yguclu (Yaman Güçlü), @EmilyBourne, and co-authors!!

And thanks to @aholmes, @IgorBaratta, and @boegel for reviewing! We couldn't do this without you

editorialbot commented 1 year 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.04991/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04991)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04991">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04991/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04991/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04991

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://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

yguclu commented 1 year ago

Thank you @danielskatz, @aholmes, @IgorBaratta and @boegel!! The review process has been well organized and insightful. I have really appreciated your input, which has allowed us to improve Pyccel!

openjournals / joss-reviews