[PRE REVIEW]: Pysersic: A Python package for determining galaxy structural properties via Bayesian inference, accelerated with jax

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@prappleizer<!--end-author-handle-- (Imad Pasha) Repository: https://github.com/pysersic/pysersic Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper-joss Version: v0.1.1 Editor: !--editor-->@eloisabentivegna<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @AstroBarker, @JBorrow Managing EiC: Dan Foreman-Mackey

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4214c6e588774490458e34630e8052c1"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4214c6e588774490458e34630e8052c1/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4214c6e588774490458e34630e8052c1/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4214c6e588774490458e34630e8052c1)

Author instructions

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

@prappleizer if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.01 s (288.0 files/s, 95897.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TeX                              1             26              0            547
Markdown                         1             29              0             64
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                             2             55              0            611
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1068

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.48550/arXiv.2012.15797 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab290a is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stu2467 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f21 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/226 is OK
- 10.1086/340952 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw3039 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04475 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2111.08721 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03283 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz1796 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5908 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.6825092 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7697295 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00024 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7799772 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01143 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1007/978-1-4842-2677-3_5 may be a valid DOI for title: pytest

INVALID DOIs

- None

[dfm]

@editorialbot check repository from branch main

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.05 s (503.1 files/s, 208991.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          13            608           1541           1862
Jupyter Notebook                 5              0           6718            165
reStructuredText                 5             66             37             63
Markdown                         1             16              0             58
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
YAML                             1              3              2             23
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            27            705           8306           2206
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[editorialbot]

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

[dfm]

@prappleizer, @tbmiller-astro — Thanks for your submission! I'm now working to assign a handling editor and I'll keep you posted during this process.

In the meantime, please feel free to take a look at this list of potential reviewers (I believe you'll need to create an account) to see if anyone would be a particularly well suited reviewer who doesn't have a conflict of interest. Please don't @ the potential reviewers - just list the GitHub usernames here.

[prappleizer]

@editorialbot generate preprint

[editorialbot]

:page_facing_up: Preprint file created: Find it here in the Artifacts list :page_facing_up:

[arfon]

@editorialbot assign @eloisabentivegna as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @eloisabentivegna is now the editor

[eloisabentivegna]

Hello, everyone!

@prappleizer, @tbmiller-astro: thanks for the submission. If you have reviewer recommendation, please post them here at your earliest convenience. I will start my own search in the meantime.

[prappleizer]

Thanks! We looked through the reviewers, and have a few possible recommendations, but no strong feelings about it.

-[at] astrobarker

• [at] rmorgan10
• [at] jborrow
• [at] zingale

[eloisabentivegna]

Thanks, @prappleizer!

@astrobarker, @rmorgan10, are you available to review this submission?

[eloisabentivegna]

👋 @AstroBarker, @rmorgan10: could you let us know about your availability?

[eloisabentivegna]

Update on the reviewer search: I have emailed the two reviewers above to enquire about availability.

[AstroBarker]

Hi, sorry I missed this and thanks for reaching out via email. I'm happy to review. I'm familiar with the methods / etc but not the scientific context as much, but I think that is fine.

[eloisabentivegna]

That's absolutely fine! I'll make sure the other review(s) cover that. Thanks for your availability!

[eloisabentivegna]

@editorialbot add @AstroBarker as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@AstroBarker added to the reviewers list!

[AstroBarker]

@editorialbot generate my checklist

[editorialbot]

Checklists can only be created once the review has started in the review issue

[eloisabentivegna]

Update: emailed invitation to reviewer @jborrow.

[JBorrow]

Looks great! Happy to review, though I might need a few weeks.

[eloisabentivegna]

Great, thanks @JBorrow! I will start the review issue now.

[eloisabentivegna]

@editorialbot add @JBorrow as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@JBorrow added to the reviewers list!

[eloisabentivegna]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5703.