[PRE REVIEW]: UltraDark.jl: A Julia package for simulation of cosmological scalar fields

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@musoke<!--end-author-handle-- (Nathan Musoke) Repository: https://github.com/musoke/UltraDark.jl Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss Version: v0.9.5 Editor: !--editor-->@xuanxu<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @szabo137, @kiranshila Managing EiC: Dan Foreman-Mackey

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7d8edc313bc8b81908b23c94d2f6adf5"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7d8edc313bc8b81908b23c94d2f6adf5/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7d8edc313bc8b81908b23c94d2f6adf5/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7d8edc313bc8b81908b23c94d2f6adf5)

Author instructions

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

@musoke 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=0.04 s (1359.9 files/s, 153954.3 lines/s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                      files          blank        comment           code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                            29            794             70           2738
TOML                              7            136              1            625
TeX                               1             34              0            405
Jupyter Notebook                  2              0            912            220
YAML                              8              3             10            206
Markdown                          7             57              0            160
Bourne Again Shell                3             23             17             61
Bourne Shell                      1             13             27             54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                             58           1060           1037           4469
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 10

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[editorialbot]

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.

[dfm]

@musoke — Thanks for your submission. I'm the managing editor of this track and I'm working to assign a suitable editor for this review. Everyone is working at capacity at the moment so it might take a few weeks before we can start the review, but I'll keep you posted.

In the meantime:

• Please make sure you add a "Statement of need" section to the paper, and fix the syntax error in the paper metadata. I think that the issue might be the & in your affiliation, which is a special character in YAML. Perhaps you can fix it by quoting your affiliation string. Check out the JOSS GitHub Actions workflow for testing.
• You might also consider expanding the documentation while you wait. From a quick look, I'd say that the example notebooks should have more textual explanation included to make them more useful. As it stands, the docs are somewhat borderline with respect to the JOSS requirements.

Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions as the review progresses!

[musoke]

@dfm, thanks for the update. I'll check out the syntax errors - not quite sure what happened there since the action didn't give me any errors. I'll also expand the docs, there is definitely room for more.

[musoke]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.

[musoke]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.

[musoke]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.

[musoke]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.

[musoke]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.

[musoke]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

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

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

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

# 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 branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

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

[xuanxu]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @xuanxu is now the editor

[xuanxu]

@musoke The editorial bot can't compile the paper because it's getting confused with another existing git reference: it finds the paper.md branch when looking for the paper.md file. Can you rename that branch? any other name will do. joss, joss-paper or joss-review are common alternatives.

[xuanxu]

@musoke friendly reminder to take a look here

[musoke]

@xuanxu, thanks for looking into this - I was completely baffled by the error. I have renamed the branch to joss - hopefully that works?

[xuanxu]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.

[xuanxu]

@editorialbot set joss as branch

[editorialbot]

Done! branch is now joss

[xuanxu]

@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:

[xuanxu]

yay! thanks @musoke

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

DynamicalBilliards.jl: An easy-to-use, modular and extendable Julia package for Dynamical Billiard systems in two dimensions. Submitting author: @Datseris Handling editor: @kyleniemeyer (Active) Reviewers: @ahwillia Similarity score: 0.8231

QuasinormalModes.jl: A Julia package for computing discrete eigenvalues of second order ODEs Submitting author: @lucass-carneiro Handling editor: @pdebuyl (Active) Reviewers: @JamieBamber, @cescalara Similarity score: 0.8225

NuclearToolkit.jl: A Julia package for nuclear structure calculations Submitting author: @SotaYoshida Handling editor: @rkurchin (Active) Reviewers: @mdavezac, @villaa Similarity score: 0.8205

DynamicalSystems.jl: A Julia software library for chaos and nonlinear dynamics Submitting author: @Datseris Handling editor: @kyleniemeyer (Active) Reviewers: @dhhagan Similarity score: 0.8203

HOODESolver.jl: A Julia package for highly oscillatory problems Submitting author: @pnavaro Handling editor: @vissarion (Active) Reviewers: @ranocha, @HaoZeke Similarity score: 0.8183

⚠️ 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.

[xuanxu]

@szabo137, @kiranshila 👋 would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The submission under consideration is UltraDark.jl: A Julia package for simulation of cosmological scalar fields: #5851

Based on your experience with Julia, math and astrophysics, I think you might be able to provide a great review of this submission. Please let me know if you think you can help us out!

[szabo137]

@xuanxu I am happy to provide a review by next week 😃

[xuanxu]

Great, thanks @szabo137!
I'm going to assign you now and once we have the second reviewers I'll start the review issue, stay tuned.

[xuanxu]

@editorialbot add @szabo137 to reviewers

[editorialbot]

@szabo137 added to the reviewers list!

[kiranshila]

@szabo137, @kiranshila 👋 would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The submission under consideration is UltraDark.jl: A Julia package for simulation of cosmological scalar fields: #5851

Based on your experience with Julia, math and astrophysics, I think you might be able to provide a great review of this submission. Please let me know if you think you can help us out!

I'd be happy to!

[xuanxu]

@kiranshila yay!, thanks! I'm starting the review issue, where the actual review will take place.

[xuanxu]

@editorialbot add @kiranshila to reviewers

[editorialbot]

@kiranshila added to the reviewers list!

[xuanxu]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6035.