editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@IlianPihlajamaa@mstimberg<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @epspebble, @dawbarton Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10036791

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8f2e12c2b6eaaeb87059dfbb417bd476"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8f2e12c2b6eaaeb87059dfbb417bd476/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8f2e12c2b6eaaeb87059dfbb417bd476/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8f2e12c2b6eaaeb87059dfbb417bd476)

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

@epspebble, 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 @mstimberg 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 @dawbarton

📝 Checklist for @epspebble

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Hello humans, 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 1 year ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.04 s (1149.7 files/s, 133103.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                           26            476             94           2683
Markdown                        10            333              0            972
TeX                              1             33              0            336
YAML                             4              3              4            124
TOML                             3              3              0             33
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            44            848             98           4148
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 1216

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1088/0022-3719/17/33/005 is OK
- 10.1038/nphys2592 is OK
- 10.1103/physreve.63.011206 is OK
- 10.1063/1.58544 is OK
- 10.1103/revmodphys.76.785 is OK
- 10.1063/5.0155142 is OK
- 10.1039/c7sm00852j is OK
- 10.1023/A:1019991729106 is OK
- 10.1088/0953-8984/3/26/022 is OK
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199235346.001.0001 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.67.021502 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.255704 is OK
- 10.3389/fphy.2018.00097 is OK
- 10.1063/5.0149764 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.75.031503 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.125701 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.106.064136 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2306.03992 is OK
- 10.1145/355841.355847 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevA.29.2765 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.96.062608 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.145501 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2307.03443 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.104.044608 is OK
- 10.1088/1742-5468/2005/05/P05013 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.56.2932 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.81.041502 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.93.012603 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.62.1856 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.10.321 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.82.011504 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.62.8004 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

HI @mstimberg - can you help me understand what's going on with this? I don't see any progress in the last month, and I only see 1 assigned reviewer, so I'm a little confused

mstimberg commented 1 year ago

HI @mstimberg - can you help me understand what's going on with this? I don't see any progress in the last month, and I only see 1 assigned reviewer, so I'm a little confused

Hi @danielskatz. I was away for all of August (see https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5718#issuecomment-1664423068) and will carry things forward from next week on. I opened the review issue for the single reviewer that agreed so far so that they could already start, since they said that they'd have time late August/early September (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5718#issuecomment-1664842419) but might not be available later. As soon as I find someone, I'll add the second reviewer here.

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

Great, thanks!

mstimberg commented 1 year ago

@IlianPihlajamaa apologies for the slow progress, I am back from vacation and will carry things forward. I have contacted additional potential reviewers, hopefully at least one of them will accept.

mstimberg commented 1 year ago

@epspebble how are looking things from your side, did you find time to look at the software/paper yet? Please be reminded that JOSS reviews can be iterative, i.e. feel free to open issues or comment here as soon as you come across concerns – there is no need to gather everything into a single review text as commonly done for traditional journals. In the same vein, please generate your checklist and feel free to tick boxes in your checklist whenever you are sure about them (the two in the beginning – conflict of interest and code of conduct – would be good first candidates 😉 ). Thank you for your time 🙏 !

mstimberg commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot add @dawbarton as reviewer

Thanks again @dawborton for having agreed to review (and no worries about not having time in the next 2–3 weeks).

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

@dawbarton added to the reviewers list!

dawbarton commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @dawbarton

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/IlianPihlajamaa/ModeCouplingTheory.jl?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@IlianPihlajamaa) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

epspebble commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @epspebble

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/IlianPihlajamaa/ModeCouplingTheory.jl?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@IlianPihlajamaa) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

mstimberg commented 1 year ago

:wave: @epspebble, @dawbarton how are things going with the reviews? Please let me know if there is anything I can do from my side to help advance things :pray:

epspebble commented 1 year ago

Hi Marcel,

September has been very busy as I mentioned to you earlier. There’ll be a big push coming as Canadian thanksgiving is around the corner!

Simon

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 1:01 AM Marcel Stimberg @.***> wrote:

👋 @epspebble https://github.com/epspebble, @dawbarton https://github.com/dawbarton how are things going with the reviews? Please let me know if there is anything I can do from my side to help advance things 🙏

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5737#issuecomment-1742565006, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA7VGRZTE3UJ5WUQ3PTQ3QLX5JYG3ANCNFSM6AAAAAA3EL25NY . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

epspebble commented 1 year ago

Hi Marcel,

Just double checking with you here concerning the bullet points under "Software paper".

IMO, the author has made some effort towards helping a "diverse, non-specialist" audience to understand how to use the software, but I think the software is made to solve a specialist class of problem, namely Mode Coupling Theory. Does the nature of this software allows us to forgive the lack of diversity? I do not see examples of integro-differential equations in the software paper that do not arise from Mode Coupling Theory (MCT). In fact, that's only one example, but that seem sophisticated enough for people working in MCT.

The next question is just a quick confirmation. I simply checked "State of the Field" because I am persuaded by the author that indeed there are no comparable software that is convenient to do this (except "in-house integrators"). The similar enough situation is discussed here: https://discourse.julialang.org/t/integro-differential-equation-and-2nd-order-differential-equation/78799/9 (which requires some extra setup)

So, can we just check this item whenever indeed there are no replacements? Do we need to do a more extensive search?

Simon

mstimberg commented 1 year ago

Hi @epspebble, thanks for your questions. Here's my take:

IMO, the author has made some effort towards helping a "diverse, non-specialist" audience to understand how to use the software, but I think the software is made to solve a specialist class of problem, namely Mode Coupling Theory. Does the nature of this software allows us to forgive the lack of diversity? I do not see examples of integro-differential equations in the software paper that do not arise from Mode Coupling Theory (MCT). In fact, that's only one example, but that seem sophisticated enough for people working in MCT.

In my opinion, it is not necessary that a "diverse, non-specialist" audience is able to use the software – as you say, this software is very specialized and someone not interested in Mode Coupling Theory will have no use for it. What is important is that someone from outside this specialization is able to figure out the "high-level functionality and purpose of the software", i.e. what the software is about. I think the authors successfully do this in their Summary section, by explaining what MCT is and why it needs special algorithms – but of course this is up to you to judge as a reviewer.

So, can we just check this item whenever indeed there are no replacements? Do we need to do a more extensive search?

If you are convinced by the authors' review of the state of the field and don't see any major omission, you can check this item. If you are not very familiar with software in this sub-field, I'd indeed recommend doing a search. But of course the "state of the field" isn't required to be exhaustive, it is important to compare to other "commonly used" software – or state that there isn't any.

Hope that helps! Don't hesitate to contact me for further questions if necessary.

dawbarton commented 1 year ago

Overall, this is a good submission and I'd be keen for this to be published in JOSS. I don't have a background in MCT and don't know the literature in this area, but the general approach/methods are well within my area of expertise. All the examples provided work in the latest version of the software and all tests pass. The documentation and paper are generally very well written.

My comments are all really minor. The only thing that is missing are the community guidelines - at least, I didn't spot any.

Paper

Minor point: the acronym MCT is used before it is introduced.
Might be good to have a reference for Bengtzelius' trick (I'll leave that up to you to decide if you want to or not).
Statement of need: point 5 is already mentioned in point 1. I'd just remove point 5 as the claims are sufficiently strong anyway. (Minor: point 7 "long-time limits of the equation" -> "long-time limits of the solution".)

Documentation

On the kernels page, one of the sections is numbered but nothing else is "1. ExponentiallyDecayingKernel"

IlianPihlajamaa commented 1 year ago

We would like to thank @dawbarton for going through the paper and the software documentation. Below we address their comments and suggestions.

There were some community guidelines at the bottom of the README document, but we agree that they were not easily discoverable. We have added them as a separate section now, both in the README as well as in the documentation.
We thank the referee for pointing out that MCT is not properly defined. We have corrected it in the manuscript.
As far as we know, the most detailed report in the literature is in section IV of https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.34.5059, where Bengtzelius writes that "By using a special technique of storing intermediate results from the inner integration the computational time increases linearly with the number of k values rather then quadratically." We have added this as a reference to the manuscript.
We agree and have removed point 5 (and corrected the sentence in current point 6).
We have fixed the formatting issue in the documentation.

Through our response and changes, we hope to have adequately addressed the comments.

@mstimberg What should I do to update the submitted manuscript, other than editing the paper.md file in our github repository?

mstimberg commented 1 year ago

What should I do to update the submitted manuscript, other than editing the paper.md file in our github repository?

You can make a comment asking @editorialbot generate pdf, and it will generate the new manuscript for you. Otherwise let me know and I can trigger it for you.

IlianPihlajamaa commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

dawbarton commented 1 year ago

Great; all looks good from my perspective.

mstimberg commented 1 year ago

:wave: @epspebble how is the review coming along from your side?

epspebble commented 1 year ago

Nothing happened so far. But I plan to take a look at my notes this weekend. It's been a very busy time for me!

epspebble commented 1 year ago

Not having a background in MCT, I am pleasantly impressed by the level of detail the authors put in the documentation to explain how to use the software - they are both succinct and precise. With their help, I have successfully walked through the examples, modifying them and re-run with slightly different sets of parameters with success. I also commend the abundance of references put at appropriate places, including function docstrings. I am happy to recommend acceptance of this work to JOSS.

I have not found any major errors other than typos (e.g. "succesful" should be "successful" in the paper, "assumtions" should be "assumptions" in MCT.md)

IlianPihlajamaa commented 1 year ago

Thanks a lot, @epspebble, for taking the time to go through the examples in the documentation. We are delighted by the kind words and positive recommendation! We have fixed the typos as pointed out.

IlianPihlajamaa commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

mstimberg commented 1 year ago

Thank you so much @dawbarton and @epspebble for your reviews. Since both reviewers accepted the manuscript/software in its current state, I will now proceed with the final steps before publication.

@IlianPihlajamaa please have a look at the checklist below, and take care of the tasks listed for authors (if necessary). Note that for technical reasons, you cannot tick off things in the checklist, so please don't worry about it.

mstimberg commented 1 year ago

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

[x] Double check authors and affiliations (including ORCIDs)
[x] Make a release of the software with the latest changes from the review and post the version number here. This is the version that will be used in the JOSS paper.
[x] Archive the release on Zenodo/figshare/etc and post the DOI here.
[x] Make sure that the title and author list (including ORCIDs) in the archive match those in the JOSS paper.
[ ] Make sure that the license listed for the archive is the same as the software license.

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance

[x] Read the text of the paper and offer comments/corrections (as either a list or a PR)
[x] Check the references in the paper for corrections (e.g. capitalization)
[x] Check that the archive title, author list, version tag, and the license are correct
[x] Set archive DOI with @editorialbot set <DOI here> as archive
[x] Set version with @editorialbot set <version here> as version
[x] Double check rendering of paper with @editorialbot generate pdf
[x] Specifically check the references with @editorialbot check references and ask author(s) to update as needed
[x] Recommend acceptance with @editorialbot recommend-accept

IlianPihlajamaa commented 1 year ago

@mstimberg I accidentally checked one of your tasks and now I cannot undo that.

mstimberg commented 1 year ago

@mstimberg I accidentally checked one of your tasks and now I cannot undo that.

@IlianPihlajamaa I don't see anything checked, so seems to be ok?

IlianPihlajamaa commented 1 year ago

[x] Double check authors and affiliations (including ORCIDs)
[x] Make a release of the software with the latest changes from the review and post the version number here. This is the version that will be used in the JOSS paper.
[x] Archive the release on Zenodo/figshare/etc and post the DOI here.
[x] Make sure that the title and author list (including ORCIDs) in the archive match those in the JOSS paper.
[x] Make sure that the license listed for the archive is the same as the software license.

The software version is: 0.8.1. The Zenodo doi is: 10.5281/zenodo.10036791.

mstimberg commented 12 months ago

Hi @IlianPihlajamaa thanks for checking off the items in the list, and apologies for taking so long to do the final review. I've opened a PR that fixes a few minor things (mostly capitalization in the bibliography) in IlianPihlajamaa/ModeCouplingTheory.jl#42. Apart from that, all is good from my side. Note that you do not have to release a new version and create a new archive, given that the changes only apply to the paper. As soon as this is done, I'll recommend the acceptance and trigger the final approval by the editor-in-chief.

IlianPihlajamaa commented 11 months ago

Great, thanks! I just merged it.

mstimberg commented 11 months ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.10036791 as archive

editorialbot commented 11 months ago

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.10036791

mstimberg commented 11 months ago

@editorialbot set 0.8.1 as version

editorialbot commented 11 months ago

Done! version is now 0.8.1

mstimberg commented 11 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 11 months ago

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

mstimberg commented 11 months ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 11 months ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 11 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1088/0022-3719/17/33/005 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevA.34.5059 is OK
- 10.1038/nphys2592 is OK
- 10.1103/physreve.63.011206 is OK
- 10.1063/1.58544 is OK
- 10.1103/revmodphys.76.785 is OK
- 10.1063/5.0155142 is OK
- 10.1039/c7sm00852j is OK
- 10.1023/A:1019991729106 is OK
- 10.1088/0953-8984/3/26/022 is OK
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199235346.001.0001 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.67.021502 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.255704 is OK
- 10.3389/fphy.2018.00097 is OK
- 10.1063/5.0149764 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.75.031503 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.125701 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.106.064136 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2306.03992 is OK
- 10.1145/355841.355847 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevA.29.2765 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.96.062608 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.145501 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2307.03443 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.104.044608 is OK
- 10.1088/1742-5468/2005/05/P05013 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.56.2932 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.81.041502 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.93.012603 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.62.1856 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.10.321 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.82.011504 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.62.8004 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 11 months 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/4746, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz commented 11 months ago

👋 @IlianPihlajamaa - I'm the track editor who will finish the processing of this submission. I've proofread the paper, and have a couple of small changes to request: https://github.com/IlianPihlajamaa/ModeCouplingTheory.jl/pull/43 Please merge this, or let me know what you disagree with, then we can continue the acceptance and publication process.

IlianPihlajamaa commented 11 months ago

I've approved the changes and merged them. Thanks for proofreading!

danielskatz commented 11 months ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

openjournals / joss-reviews

[REVIEW]: ModeCouplingTheory.jl: A solver for mode-coupling-theory-like integro-differential equations #5737

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

Review checklist for @dawbarton

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @epspebble

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Paper

Documentation

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance