[REVIEW]: `pgmuvi`: Quick and easy Gaussian Process Regression for multi-wavelength astronomical timeseries

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@pscicluna<!--end-author-handle-- (Peter Scicluna) Repository: https://github.com/ICSM/pgmuvi Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v0.1.0 Editor: !--editor-->@adonath<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @joshspeagle, @baptklein Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9a8bba565763f39b71142a04ab0d2a3b"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9a8bba565763f39b71142a04ab0d2a3b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9a8bba565763f39b71142a04ab0d2a3b/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9a8bba565763f39b71142a04ab0d2a3b)

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

@joshspeagle & @baptklein, 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 @adonath 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 @baptklein

[editorialbot]

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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.04 s (757.8 files/s, 185346.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                           7            400           1242           1353
Markdown                         6            117              0            385
TeX                              1             31              0            267
Jupyter Notebook                 3              0           3267            137
YAML                             5             15             29             91
TOML                             1             11              4             62
reStructuredText                 5             36             31             43
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
INI                              1              1              1              4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            31            623           4582           2377
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 2120

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332 is OK
- 10.3847/2515-5172/aaaf6c is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7646759 is OK
- 10.1109/TPAMI.2015.2448083 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-103508 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stab2860 is OK
- 10.1007/BF00648343 is OK
- 10.1086/160554 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/18 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/aab77c is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/202243928 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/496 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[adonath]

@joshspeagle, @baptklein and @pscicluna this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on. Thanks again for the submission and for agreeing to review!

A short reminder for @joshspeagle and @baptklein on the review process:

You can create a checklist for your review by entering

@editorialbot generate my checklist

at the top of a new comment in this thread. You also find general instructions for the review here in the issue in the top comment as well as in the JOSS documentation here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

The checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#REVIEW_NUMBER so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if any of you require some more time. We can also use EditorialBot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@adonath) if you have any questions/concerns.

[adonath]

@joshspeagle and @baptklein you can start the review any time using the editorial bot commands above. Let's aim for a timely start of the process.

[editorialbot]

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

[baptklein]

Dear authors, I provided a first review on the paper/Docs in issue #45. Please let me know if anything is unclear.

[arfon]

@joshspeagle, @baptklein, @adonath – this review seems to be stuck at this point. Would you agree?

[joshspeagle]

Ack!!! This review had completely slipped my mind until the reminder. I'll get comments back ASAP (hopefully by the end of the week) to get this moving again. So sorry everyone!

[baptklein]

The authors have acknowledge my comments and suggestions. I believe that they are in the process of taking them into account, but there hasn't been much progress since November 2023, as far as I can tell.

[adonath]

Just to confirm: the issues related to JOSS review are still open: https://github.com/ICSM/pgmuvi/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22JOSS+review%22

@pscicluna Please address the review comments in a timely manner. Thanks!

[adonath]

@pscicluna Can you please provide an estimate on how much time you need to implement the comments. It would be good to make some progress here.

[adonath]

@pscicluna Are you interested in going further with this submission? If not I would suggest we close and you re-submit once your time schedule allows for stable progress.

[warrickball]

Hi @pscicluna, as we haven't heard from you despite multiple attempts on different channels, even though there's been activity in the repo (though none obviously towards this JOSS review), we'll close this issue and regard the submission as withdrawn in a week's time.

[warrickball]

@editorialbot withdraw

[editorialbot]

Paper withdrawn.