[PRE REVIEW]: easyunfold: A Python package for unfolding electronic band structures

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@zhubonan<!--end-author-handle-- (Bonan Zhu) Repository: https://github.com/SMTG-UCL/easyunfold Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper Version: v0.3.0 Editor: !--editor-->@mbarzegary<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @srmnitc, @awvwgk Managing EiC: Kevin M. Moerman

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e874a8adc53c61f40573b2d707ebf1e4"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e874a8adc53c61f40573b2d707ebf1e4/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e874a8adc53c61f40573b2d707ebf1e4/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e874a8adc53c61f40573b2d707ebf1e4)

Author instructions

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

@zhubonan 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=2.24 s (26.3 files/s, 3194.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          18            745            978           2583
Markdown                        14            341              0            991
SVG                              3              3              3            810
TeX                              1             22              0            225
YAML                             5             38              7            216
Bourne Shell                     8             14             15             72
TOML                             1              5              0             29
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
JSON                             6              0              0              8
reStructuredText                 1              2              3              3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            59           1182           1014           4972
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1385

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.85.085201 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-022-32669-3 is OK
- 10.1021/jacs.2c13336 is OK
- 10.1038/s41566-021-00950-4 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 is OK
- 10.1016/j.commatsci.2017.07.030 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1002/adts.201900015 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[editorialbot]

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

[zhubonan]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

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

@editorialbot commands

[zhubonan]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @zhubonan, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Add to this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot add @username as reviewer

# Remove from this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot remove @username from reviewers

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Assign a user as the editor of this submission
@editorialbot assign @username as editor

# Remove the editor assigned to this submission
@editorialbot remove editor

# Remind an author, a reviewer or the editor to return to a review after a 
# certain period of time (supported units days and weeks)
@editorialbot remind @reviewer in 2 weeks

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for version
@editorialbot set v1.0.0 as version

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Set a value for repository
@editorialbot set https://github.com/organization/repo as repository

# Set a value for the archive DOI
@editorialbot set set 10.5281/zenodo.6861996 as archive

# Mention the EiCs for the correct track
@editorialbot ping track-eic

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Recommends the submission for acceptance
@editorialbot recommend-accept

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Flag submission with questionable scope
@editorialbot query scope

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

# Creates a post-review checklist with editor and authors tasks
@editorialbot create post-review checklist

# Open the review issue
@editorialbot start review

[zhubonan]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.85.085201 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-022-32669-3 is OK
- 10.1021/jacs.2c13336 is OK
- 10.1038/s41566-021-00950-4 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 is OK
- 10.1016/j.commatsci.2017.07.030 is OK
- 10.1002/adts.201900015 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[zhubonan]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[zhubonan]

Here are some potential reviewers

• Chengcheng-Xiao
• JaGeo
• mkhorton

Potential JOSS editors in the field:

• Sophie Beck
• Jarvist
• Rachel Kurchin

[zhubonan]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[kavanase]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman just a friendly check-in to make sure our submission hasn't slipped through the cracks (just I noticed there was activity on most other pre-reviews in the last few weeks). Would it be possible to get an editor assigned to our submission? Thanks! 😃

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@kavanase @zhubonan we are currently processing a bit of a backlog of submissions and are hence a bit slower than usual. A lot of editorials have been preoccupied with other submission. I'll invite @mbarzegary who I think will be able to start mid-October. Thanks for your patience.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot invite @mbarzegary as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[kavanase]

Thanks @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman!

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot assign @mbarzegary as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @mbarzegary is now the editor

[mbarzegary]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

unfold: removing the barriers to sharing and reproducing prospective life-cycle assessment databases Submitting author: @romainsacchi Handling editor: @fraukewiese (Active) Reviewers: @mfastudillo, @MaximeAgez Similarity score: 0.8298

effmass: An effective mass package Submitting author: @lucydot Handling editor: @katyhuff (Retired) Reviewers: @ajjackson, @bocklund, @mkhorton Similarity score: 0.8138

pyscal: A python module for structural analysis of atomic environments Submitting author: @srmnitc Handling editor: @melissawm (Retired) Reviewers: @lucydot, @bocklund Similarity score: 0.8134

sumo: Command-line tools for plotting and analysis of periodic ab initio calculations Submitting author: @utf Handling editor: @kyleniemeyer (Active) Reviewers: @jarvist, @cfgoldsmith Similarity score: 0.8131

WulffPack: A Python package for Wulff constructions Submitting author: @magnusrahm Handling editor: @drvinceknight (Active) Reviewers: @EduPH, @mzszym, @corybrunson Similarity score: 0.8092

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[mbarzegary]

Hi @lucydot @utf @srmnitc 👋 Considering that you have already published your software in JOSS, would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? As you know, we carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

Paper: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/openjournals/joss-papers/joss.05841/joss.05841/10.21105.joss.05841.pdf Software: https://github.com/SMTG-UCL/easyunfold

[srmnitc]

@mbarzegary The submission looks interesting, and I would be happy to review it.

[mbarzegary]

Thank you @srmnitc

[mbarzegary]

@editorialbot add @srmnitc as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@srmnitc added to the reviewers list!

[mbarzegary]

Hi @bocklund @jarvist @cfgoldsmith 👋 Considering that you have already reviewed for JOSS, would any of you be willing to review this submission? As you know, we carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

Paper: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/openjournals/joss-papers/joss.05841/joss.05841/10.21105.joss.05841.pdf Software: https://github.com/SMTG-UCL/easyunfold

[jarvist]

My apologies, I'm currently editing for JOSS, so don't have any spare capacity for reviewing.

[lucydot]

@mbarzegary I am also editing for JOSS; I suggest that some of the authors from this package may be able to help review: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04014

[mbarzegary]

@lucydot thank you so much for the suggestion.

[mbarzegary]

Hi @dandavies99 @awvwgk 👋 Considering that you have already reviewed for JOSS, would any of you be willing to review this submission? As you know, we carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

Paper: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/openjournals/joss-papers/joss.05841/joss.05841/10.21105.joss.05841.pdf Software: https://github.com/SMTG-UCL/easyunfold

[awvwgk]

I would be available for reviewing this submission

[mbarzegary]

thank you @awvwgk

[mbarzegary]

@editorialbot add @awvwgk as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@awvwgk added to the reviewers list!

[mbarzegary]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5974.

[mbarzegary]

@awvwgk can you please let me know your progress on this review?