editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@arnauqb@rkurchin<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @rajeshrinet, @marvinschmitt Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8377044

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/deb2493057e20fd87c18f73b606cf2d3"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/deb2493057e20fd87c18f73b606cf2d3/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/deb2493057e20fd87c18f73b606cf2d3/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/deb2493057e20fd87c18f73b606cf2d3)

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

@rajeshrinet & @marvinschmitt, 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 @rkurchin 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 @rajeshrinet

📝 Checklist for @marvinschmitt

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=0.06 s (1018.1 files/s, 120804.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          36            417            508           1986
SVG                              2              0              0            996
Jupyter Notebook                 7              0           2309            447
Markdown                        12             81              0            278
YAML                             4             22              9            185
TeX                              1             17              0            160
CSS                              1             39             20            104
JavaScript                       1              1              0             15
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            64            577           2846           4171
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 1229

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.4296287 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05361 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02505 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04622 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05428 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v100.i07 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04304 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1016/j.jempfin.2009.06.006 may be a valid DOI for title: Applying the method of simulated moments to estimate a small agent-based asset pricing model
- 10.2307/3318418 may be a valid DOI for title: Exponential convergence of Langevin distributions and their discrete approximations
- 10.1111/rssb.12158 may be a valid DOI for title: A general framework for updating belief distributions

INVALID DOIs

- None

rkurchin commented 1 year ago

(note to self not to pester @marvinschmitt about review progress before early September 😉)

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:

rajeshrinet commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @rajeshrinet

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/arnauqb/blackbirds?
[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 (@arnauqb) 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?

rkurchin commented 1 year ago

Hi @rajeshrinet and @marvinschmitt, just checking in on review progress here! As you proceed, feel free to open issues/PR's in the project repo; if you do so, link back to this review issue for easy tracking.

rkurchin commented 1 year ago

Aaaand I blatantly disregarded my note to self above, apologies Marvin, feel free to disregard for a few days

marvinschmitt commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @marvinschmitt

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/arnauqb/blackbirds?
[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 (@arnauqb) 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?

marvinschmitt commented 1 year ago

A few comments on the paper itself:

The in-text citations within parentheses are incorrectly formatted. It's currently [...] simulation models (see e.g. Bayedin et al. (2020)) and should be [...] simulation models (see e.g., Bayedin et al., 2020).
A tiny pet peeve of mine: e.g. should be followed by a comma. Just mentioning it because it occurred in the citation example from above.
Please add curly braces around {B}ayesian in the .bib file for proper capitalization.
The sentence [Our package is used] in forthcoming publications yet to be announced publicly doesn't age well. I would suggest removing it altogether.
You could consider adding the BayesFlow package for amortized Bayesian workflows (focus on simulation-based inference) to the list of related software. I'm one of the authors of that package, so this is just a suggestion and strictly optional.

@misc{radev2023bayesflow,
  title = {BayesFlow: Amortized Bayesian Workflows With Neural Networks},
  author = {Stefan T Radev and Marvin Schmitt and Lukas Schumacher and Lasse Elsem\"{u}ller and Valentin Pratz and Yannik Sch\"{a}lte and Ullrich K\"{o}the and Paul-Christian B\"{u}rkner},
  year = {2023},
  publisher= {arXiv},
  url={https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.16015}
}

arnauqb commented 11 months ago

Thank you for the reviewers @marvinschmitt @rajeshrinet for agreeing to review blackbirds. I just came back from annual leave and will go through the comments over the next day(s).

arnauqb commented 11 months ago

A few comments on the paper itself:

The in-text citations within parentheses are incorrectly formatted. It's currently [...] simulation models (see e.g. Bayedin et al. (2020)) and should be [...] simulation models (see e.g., Bayedin et al., 2020).

A tiny pet peeve of mine: e.g. should be followed by a comma. Just mentioning it because it occurred in the citation example from above.

Please add curly braces around {B}ayesian in the .bib file for proper capitalization.

The sentence [Our package is used] in forthcoming publications yet to be announced publicly doesn't age well. I would suggest removing it altogether.

You could consider adding the BayesFlow package for amortized Bayesian workflows (focus on simulation-based inference) to the list of related software. I'm one of the authors of that package, so this is just a suggestion and strictly optional.
@misc{radev2023bayesflow,
  title = {BayesFlow: Amortized Bayesian Workflows With Neural Networks},
  author = {Stefan T Radev and Marvin Schmitt and Lukas Schumacher and Lasse Elsem\"{u}ller and Valentin Pratz and Yannik Sch\"{a}lte and Ullrich K\"{o}the and Paul-Christian B\"{u}rkner},
  year = {2023},
  publisher= {arXiv},
  url={https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.16015}
}

Thank you for the comments / suggestions, I have now incorporated them into the paper. Latest version: https://github.com/arnauqb/blackbirds/suites/16358519183/artifacts/934384480

rajeshrinet commented 11 months ago

@rkurchin I have completed my first review of the code and the paper. The software looks very good. The paper is well written with a clear statement of need and state of the field.

I found a few problems with installation, but @arnauqb addressed those.

I have made a few suggestions via issues on the code repository, which the authors have handled.

Some comments (optional) for the authors to consider:

High-level summary in the paper: the current summary of the paper is clear enough for potential software users but not for a diverse, non-specialist audience. Similarly, there needs to be more description (in the form of comments) in the example files on GitHub. I suggest adding a README in the examples folder and some more comments in the representative examples.
State of the field: the paper compares with other commonly used packages. In addition, I want to bring to the attention, the PyRoss library: https://github.com/rajeshrinet/pyross. I am one of the team members who developed PyRoss. PyRoss allows full Bayesian inference on any user-defined compartment epidemiological models through Python dictionaries. The inherent method - derived from functional limit theorems for Markov population process - is not limited to compartment epidemiological models.

marvinschmitt commented 11 months ago

Thank you for addressing my comments @arnauqb. Based on the edits, I have updated my review checklist.

BTW: The BayesFlow paper has just been published in JOSS last week, so you could directly update the reference.

@article{Radev_BayesFlow_Amortized_Bayesian_2023,
    author = {Radev, Stefan T. and Schmitt, Marvin and Schumacher, Lukas and Elsemüller, Lasse and Pratz, Valentin and Schälte, Yannik and Köthe, Ullrich and Bürkner, Paul-Christian},
    doi = {10.21105/joss.05702},
    journal = {Journal of Open Source Software},
    month = sep,
    number = {89},
    pages = {5702},
    title = {{BayesFlow: Amortized Bayesian Workflows With Neural Networks}},
    url = {https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05702},
    volume = {8},
    year = {2023}
}

arnauqb commented 11 months ago

I've updated the BayesFlow reference and added an additional README to the examples folder. Thank you very much for your helpful comments and additions.

I believe this concludes the review @rkurchin ?

rkurchin commented 11 months ago

@editorialbot generate post-review checklist

editorialbot commented 11 months ago

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

rkurchin commented 11 months ago

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

[ ] 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.

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
[ ] Recommend acceptance with @editorialbot recommend-accept

rkurchin commented 11 months ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 11 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.4296287 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05361 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jempfin.2009.06.006 is OK
- 10.2307/3318418 is OK
- 10.1111/rssb.12158 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02505 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04622 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05428 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v100.i07 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04304 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05702 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

rkurchin commented 11 months ago

Thanks everyone! Authors, I'll do an editorial pass over the manuscript and send any comments shortly. In the meantime, the immediate next steps for you are (take a look at the checklist above, too):

Merge any and all changes from this review into your main branch and issue a new version tag. (If you want to merge in the paper, you may, but it is not required that the actual manuscript live into the repo in perpetuity since JOSS will host it and you can simply add a badge link or whatever you like. But the actual changes to software and docs do need to be merged!)
Create a DOI for the contents of the repo at the same commit corresponding to that version tag, e.g. using figshare or Zenodo. Please make sure that the metadata (version number, title, author list, etc.) match those of your manuscript.
Post a comment here with the version number and DOI.

rkurchin 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:

arnauqb commented 11 months ago

New version with all implemented changes: v1.2 (https://github.com/arnauqb/blackbirds/releases/tag/v1.2)
Zenodo DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8377044

rkurchin commented 11 months ago

Editorial comments:

line 19: "means to" somehow sounds weird to me and it feels like it should be "means of" although I can't explain why (this should be considered an optional change)
second page: be consistent about whether equations in the middle of a sentence have commas after them (I lean towards including them, i.e. adding them in equations (2) and (3) to be consistent with (1))

I'm pretty sure this is the fewest editorial comments I've ever given! 👏

Conceptual question: Is it currently the case that everything needs to be in PyTorch? For example, could a model be in JAX, or even in some other AD-able language like Julia? It would be helpful to clarify this, and if it's not currently possible, it's obviously beyond the scope of this review but I would selfishly be thrilled if this could be possible 😁

rkurchin commented 11 months ago

@editorialbot set 1.2 as version

editorialbot commented 11 months ago

Done! version is now 1.2

rkurchin commented 11 months ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.8377044 as archive

editorialbot commented 11 months ago

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.8377044

arnauqb commented 11 months ago

Editorial comments:

line 19: "means to" somehow sounds weird to me and it feels like it should be "means of" although I can't explain why (this should be considered an optional change)

second page: be consistent about whether equations in the middle of a sentence have commas after them (I lean towards including them, i.e. adding them in equations (2) and (3) to be consistent with (1))

I'm pretty sure this is the fewest editorial comments I've ever given! 👏

Conceptual question: Is it currently the case that everything needs to be in PyTorch? For example, could a model be in JAX, or even in some other AD-able language like Julia? It would be helpful to clarify this, and if it's not currently possible, it's obviously beyond the scope of this review but I would selfishly be thrilled if this could be possible 😁

Thanks for the comments! Just corrected the small typos and pushed the later paper version to the main branch.

For now, the package only supports PyTorch, so all models need to be in Torch. This is because we require the whole pipeline to use torch.autograd. It would certainly be cool if we could support other frameworks / languages, maybe in the future!

rkurchin 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

- 10.5281/zenodo.4296287 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05361 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jempfin.2009.06.006 is OK
- 10.2307/3318418 is OK
- 10.1111/rssb.12158 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02505 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04622 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05428 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v100.i07 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04304 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05702 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 11 months ago

:wave: @openjournals/dsais-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/4607, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

arfon commented 11 months ago

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot commented 11 months ago

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

editorialbot commented 11 months ago

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

``` cff-version: "1.2.0" authors: - family-names: Quera-Bofarull given-names: Arnau orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5055-9863" - family-names: Dyer given-names: Joel orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8304-8450" - family-names: Calinescu given-names: Anisoara orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2082-734X" - family-names: Farmer given-names: J. Doyne orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7871-073X" - family-names: Wooldridge given-names: Michael orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9329-8410" contact: - family-names: Quera-Bofarull given-names: Arnau orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5055-9863" - family-names: Dyer given-names: Joel orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8304-8450" doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8377044 message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the Journal of Open Source Software. preferred-citation: authors: - family-names: Quera-Bofarull given-names: Arnau orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5055-9863" - family-names: Dyer given-names: Joel orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8304-8450" - family-names: Calinescu given-names: Anisoara orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2082-734X" - family-names: Farmer given-names: J. Doyne orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7871-073X" - family-names: Wooldridge given-names: Michael orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9329-8410" date-published: 2023-09-28 doi: 10.21105/joss.05776 issn: 2475-9066 issue: 89 journal: Journal of Open Source Software publisher: name: Open Journals start: 5776 title: "BlackBIRDS: Black-Box Inference foR Differentiable Simulators" type: article url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05776" volume: 8 title: "BlackBIRDS: Black-Box Inference foR Differentiable Simulators" ```

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

editorialbot commented 11 months ago

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot commented 11 months 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/4627
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05776
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

arfon commented 11 months ago

@rajeshrinet, @marvinschmitt – many thanks for your reviews here and to @rkurchin for editing this submission! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you ✨

@arnauqb – your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS :zap::rocket::boom:

editorialbot commented 11 months 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.05776/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05776)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05776">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05776/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05776/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05776

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

openjournals / joss-reviews

[REVIEW]: BlackBIRDS: Black-Box Inference foR Differentiable Simulators #5776

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

Review checklist for @rajeshrinet

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @marvinschmitt

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance