[PRE REVIEW]: Swiftest: An N-body Integrator for Gravitational Systems

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@carlislewishard<!--end-author-handle-- (Carlisle Wishard) Repository: https://github.com/carlislewishard/swiftest Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@warrickball<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @hannorein, @mikegrudic, @aatrani Managing EiC: Dan Foreman-Mackey

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/47fdb7db4f20d10ebe6d07132d8d9922"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/47fdb7db4f20d10ebe6d07132d8d9922/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/47fdb7db4f20d10ebe6d07132d8d9922/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/47fdb7db4f20d10ebe6d07132d8d9922)

Author instructions

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

@cwishard 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]

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]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1006/icar.1994.1039 is OK
- 10.1086/300541 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/79 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.32 s (413.8 files/s, 126974.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fortran 90                      68           4089           5088          20401
Python                          26           1058           2289           4428
Markdown                         6            208              0            544
CMake                           11            131            291            531
Bourne Shell                    18             54            174            264
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            576             41
TeX                              1              2              0             30
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           131           5542           8418          26239
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 751

[editorialbot]

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

[dfm]

@cwishard — Thanks for your submission! I'm currently working to assign an editor for this review, but in the meantime, I wanted to comment on your question from the submission form about whether or not it is acceptable to host JOSS submission on an institutional GitHub instance. This is fine from our perspective inasmuch as it is possible for external contributors to contribute to the software. It's not clear to me whether or not it's possible for folks without a Purdue login to fork or open issues or PRs on this project. If that is possible, the instructions should be clearly outlined in the documentation of your project because I expect most community members won't be familiar with interacting with such an interface. My personal opinion is that you'll increase the impact an community engagement if you use a more accessible host (e.g. github.com, gitlab.com, ...), but as long as contribution is possible then your submission is compatible with our review requirements!

[warrickball]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @warrickball is now the editor

[warrickball]

Hi! To echo @dfm's point on hosting on the Purdue GitHub instance, it's only fundamentally a problem if it interferes with the requirement that the repository host "allows outside users to freely open issues and propose code changes". I had a look around for documentation at Purdue and the barrier to gaining access looks too high. Quoting the Managing Users page:

All users of your GitHub repositories will need to have a Purdue Career Account. Any non-Purdue collaborators will need to have a Request for Privileges (R4P) filed by your business office to create a Purdue Career Account for them before they can be given access to any repositories on the Purdue GitHub. If your project is largely a shared, multi-institution project, you should strongly consider use of github.com instead of Purdue's private GitHub.

[warrickball]

Hi @cwishard, I was wondering whether you'd made any progress or come to any decisions on the hosting issue?

[carlislewishard]

Hi all, I apologize for the delay, we had not been receiving notifications on this thread. Thank you for your response to the hosting issue. We will discuss things on our end and we will likely migrate the code to a commercial GitHub. We will get this done ASAP and get back to you.

[carlislewishard]

Replying to your question about potential reviewers: we recommend David Nesvorný, Hanno Rein, Matt Clement, Kat Volk, David O’Brien, and Hal Levison. All are experts in the field of n-body integrators and their applications. Hanno Rein is included in your spreadsheet of approved reviewers.

[warrickball]

Thanks! Reviewer recommendations are invaluable. I'll start contacting reviewers once there's a clear path to the code being hosted somewhere suitable for the JOSS review.

I've also noticed that you're now posting as @carlislewishard, whereas the submitting author is @cwishard. Have you possibly somehow ended up with two GitHub accounts? I don't think this is an issue but we should probably choose the correct one so that the editorial bot tags it when the review begins.

[carlislewishard]

Warrick,

Great, we will let you know when we have migrated everything.

I believe that there is a mix up with the usernames, yes. @cwishard is my username on the Purdue Enterprises GitHub, @carlislewishard is my username on commercial GitHub. I apologize for the confusion.

Carlisle

Carlisle A. Wishard (she/her)

Graduate Student Researcher Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences Purdue University

On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 9:12 AM Warrick Ball @.***> wrote:

Thanks! Reviewer recommendations are invaluable. I'll start contacting reviewers once there's a clear path to the code being hosted somewhere suitable for the JOSS review.

I've also noticed that you're now posting as @carlislewishard https://github.com/carlislewishard, whereas the submitting author is @cwishard https://github.com/cwishard. Have you possibly somehow ended up with two GitHub accounts? I don't think this is an issue but we should probably choose the correct one so that the editorial bot tags it when the review begins.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5214#issuecomment-1485074781, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQXFWA3QKQ4BXS6HW533GF3W6GG2NANCNFSM6AAAAAAVQE3CPE . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[carlislewishard]

Hello! I believe that I have successfully migrated the code from GitHub Enterprises to open GitHub. Here is the link to the new repo: https://github.com/carlislewishard/swiftest. Please let me know if this meets the JOSS standards.

[warrickball]

Brilliant! We'll change the review metadata to point to that repo, and your GitHub username as the submitting author. In the meantime, I'll start looking for reviewers (including from your helpful suggestions).

[warrickball]

@editorialbot set https://github.com/carlislewishard/swiftest as repository

[editorialbot]

Done! repository is now https://github.com/carlislewishard/swiftest

[warrickball]

I'm gathering reviewers and hope to start the review soon. In the meantime, @carlislewishard, could you update your GitHub username in your JOSS profile (if you haven't already) to @carlislewishard? That should make sure we use the correct one when the review starts. Let me know when you've done so, in case I should update the metadata in this issue myself.

[carlislewishard]

Done!

[carlislewishard]

Just a small update, I have updated the affiliations of our collaborators per their requests. It now reflects their affiliation to Purdue University, which is where they completed the work on Swiftest, and does not reflect their current workplace. Thanks!

[carlislewishard]

Hi all, just checking in to see if any progress has been made finding reviewers/beginning the review process. Let me know if there is anything else that you need from our side.

[warrickball]

Sorry about the relative quiet. I've been trying to find a third reviewer but have been slowed down by the Easter break and now being on holiday myself. It's at the top of the to-do list for when I get back next week.

[carlislewishard]

Of course, no problem at all. Thanks for the update!

[warrickball]

@editorialbot add @hannorein as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@hannorein added to the reviewers list!

[editorialbot]

I can't add that reviewer: mikegrudic is not a username

[warrickball]

@editorialbot add @mikegrudic as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@mikegrudic added to the reviewers list!

[warrickball]

@editorialbot add @aatrani as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@aatrani added to the reviewers list!

[warrickball]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5409.