[PRE REVIEW]: Qiskit Dynamics: A Python package for simulating the time dynamics of quantum systems

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@DanPuzzuoli<!--end-author-handle-- (Daniel Puzzuoli) Repository: https://github.com/Qiskit-Extensions/qiskit-dynamics Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper Version: 0.4.2 Editor: !--editor-->@danielskatz<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @babreu-ncsa, @goerz, @hodgestar Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3cc07f787f550f53fbf9dd05e4503348"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3cc07f787f550f53fbf9dd05e4503348/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3cc07f787f550f53fbf9dd05e4503348/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3cc07f787f550f53fbf9dd05e4503348)

Author instructions

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

@DanPuzzuoli 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=0.30 s (529.6 files/s, 134498.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                         101           6913           8093          20594
reStructuredText                26            892           1191            970
YAML                            17             12              5            507
Markdown                         8            134              0            388
TeX                              3             27              0            305
INI                              1              7              0             47
Bourne Shell                     1              8             15             12
TOML                             1              1              0              6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           158           7994           9304          22829
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 620

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.cpc.2012.11.019 is OK
- 10.1103/physrevapplied.15.034080 is OK
- 10.21468/SciPostPhysCore.6.2.037 is OK
- 10.1038/s42005-022-00887-2 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2110.10310 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmr.2010.11.008 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2023.112262 is OK
- 10.1088/2058-9565/aba404 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.2573505 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05329 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1109/hpca53966.2022.00057 may be a valid DOI for title: Quantumnas: Noise-adaptive search for robust quantum circuits

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[danielskatz]

👋 @DanPuzzuoli - thanks for your submission. I'll be the editor for it.

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.

In addition, you could work on the possibly missing DOI that editorialbot suggests, but note that it may be incorrect. Please feel free to make changes to your .bib file, then use the command @editorialbot check references to check again, and the command @editorialbot generate pdf when the references are right to make a new PDF. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @danielskatz is now the editor

[danielskatz]

👋 @DanPuzzuoli - I also see that your references didn't build correctly. Please see the example paper. You've quoted all the references, e.g.,

`[@alexander_qiskit_2020]`

instead of just using brackets without quotes, e.g.

[@alexander_qiskit_2020]

you can change these and then recompile with @editorialbot generate pdf as mentioned above

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @babreu-ncsa as review

Thanks @babreu-ncsa for volunteering via a different channel. I'm adding you to the system here, but we won't actually start the review until we get at least one more reviewer, perhaps based on suggestions from the author.

[editorialbot]

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

@editorialbot commands

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @babreu-ncsa as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@babreu-ncsa added to the reviewers list!

[DanPuzzuoli]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.cpc.2012.11.019 is OK
- 10.1109/hpca53966.2022.00057 is OK
- 10.1103/physrevapplied.15.034080 is OK
- 10.21468/SciPostPhysCore.6.2.037 is OK
- 10.1038/s42005-022-00887-2 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2110.10310 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmr.2010.11.008 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2023.112262 is OK
- 10.1088/2058-9565/aba404 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.2573505 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05329 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[DanPuzzuoli]

@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:

[DanPuzzuoli]

Hi @danielskatz, thank you for being the editor on this submission! Also thanks to @babreu-ncsa for being a reviewer.

I believe I've fixed the citation issues (both the missing DOI and the erroneous quotation marks - I'm not sure why I thought the quotes were necessary).

For reviewer suggestions:

• goerz: they are in the list of pre-existing JOSS reviewers, and are coincidentally the author of one of the packages cited in the paper, so they would be a good fit.
• hodgestar or nwlambert: Both are major contributors to QuTiP, which is the largest package offering similar functionality to this submission.
• nwittler: A major contributor to C3 (another related package cited in the paper).

[danielskatz]

Thanks @DanPuzzuoli - this looks good.

[danielskatz]

👋 @goerz - would you be willing to review this JOSS submission, given your connection to the topic/software community?

[danielskatz]

👋 @hodgestar and @nwlambert - would one of you be willing to review this JOSS submission? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[goerz]

@danielskatz Yes, I’d be happy to review

[danielskatz]

Thanks @goerz - I'll add you, but wait a day or two to start the review to see if we can get a third reviewer.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @goerz as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@goerz added to the reviewers list!

[goerz]

Thanks @goerz - I'll add you, but wait a day or two to start the review to see if we can get a third reviewer.

No worries, I won't get to this until the end of next week ;-)

[hodgestar]

Hi Daniel,

I'd be happy to review too if needed.

Regards, Simon

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @hodgestar as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@hodgestar added to the reviewers list!

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5853.