[PRE REVIEW]: Jobflow: Computational Workflows Made Simple

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@Andrew-S-Rosen<!--end-author-handle-- (Andrew S. Rosen) Repository: https://github.com/materialsproject/jobflow Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main Version: 0.1.14 Editor: !--editor-->@arfon<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @rashatwi, @jherasdo Managing EiC: Kevin M. Moerman

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fe6c0ab0721b3271728a35e69d02c538"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fe6c0ab0721b3271728a35e69d02c538/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fe6c0ab0721b3271728a35e69d02c538/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fe6c0ab0721b3271728a35e69d02c538)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @Andrew-S-Rosen. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@Andrew-S-Rosen 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=0.10 s (1020.7 files/s, 165751.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          49           2526           2713           6296
Markdown                        10            271              0            693
YAML                            13             61              6            351
Jupyter Notebook                 7              0           1993            225
TOML                             1             13              0            134
TeX                              1              0              0            122
reStructuredText                13             95            220            104
CSS                              1              9              3             58
SVG                              1              0              1             16
HTML                             1              0              0              3
JSON                             1              0              0              1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            98           2975           4936           8003
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 2361

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.7720998 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1063/1.4812323 may be a valid DOI for title: Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation
- 10.1016/j.commatsci.2015.09.013 may be a valid DOI for title: AiiDA: automated interactive infrastructure and database for computational science
- 10.21203/rs.3.rs-38000/v1 may be a valid DOI for title: A graph-based network for predicting chemical reaction pathways in solid-state materials synthesis
- 10.1002/cpe.3505 may be a valid DOI for title: FireWorks: a dynamic workflow system designed for high-throughput applications
- 10.1109/p3hpc51967.2020.00011 may be a valid DOI for title: Workflows are the new applications: Challenges in performance, portability, and productivity
- 10.1109/works54523.2021.00012 may be a valid DOI for title: Exaworks: Workflows for exascale

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5903364 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:

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

Cylc: A Workflow Engine for Cycling Systems Submitting author: @hjoliver Handling editor: @arfon (Active) Reviewers: @sarats, @Chilipp Similarity score: 0.8166

WATTS: Workflow and template toolkit for simulation Submitting author: @paulromano Handling editor: @danielskatz (Active) Reviewers: @sskutnik, @munkm, @yadudoc Similarity score: 0.8131

flowTorch - a Python library for analysis and reduced-order modeling of fluid flows Submitting author: @AndreWeiner Handling editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman (Active) Reviewers: @akaptano, @JaroslavHron, @salrm8, @hkjeldsberg Similarity score: 0.8076

MyQueue: Task and workflow scheduling system Submitting author: @jjmortensen Handling editor: @danielskatz (Active) Reviewers: @gonsie, @marksantcroos Similarity score: 0.8076

flowMC: Normalizing flow enhanced sampling package for probabilistic inference in JAX Submitting author: @kazewong Handling editor: @rkurchin (Active) Reviewers: @matt-graham, @Daniel-Dodd Similarity score: 0.8018

⚠️ 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.

[Andrew-S-Rosen]

Reviewer Suggestions

Here are some potential reviewers based on the JOSS reviewer list, where I considered individuals with expertise and interest at the intersection of chemistry/materials simulations and workflow infrastructure. GitHub usernames are included in parentheses without the @.

• Rasha Atwi (rashatwi)
• Javier Heras-Domingo (jherasdo)
• Alex Squires (alexsquires)
• Sarath Menon (srmnitc)

Additionally, based on prior JOSS papers (not on the reviewer list):

• Jens Mortensen (jjmortensen)
• Markus Scheidgen (markus1978)

[danielskatz]

@Andrew-S-Rosen - normally I would next find an editor, and get the review started, but since I feel a bit conflicted due to Parsl and would rather avoid the appearance of any issues, our editor-in-chief (@arfon) will take over this for me.

[Andrew-S-Rosen]

@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:

Cylc: A Workflow Engine for Cycling Systems Submitting author: @hjoliver Handling editor: @arfon (Active) Reviewers: @sarats, @Chilipp Similarity score: 0.8179

WATTS: Workflow and template toolkit for simulation Submitting author: @paulromano Handling editor: @danielskatz (Active) Reviewers: @sskutnik, @munkm, @yadudoc Similarity score: 0.8119

MyQueue: Task and workflow scheduling system Submitting author: @jjmortensen Handling editor: @danielskatz (Active) Reviewers: @gonsie, @marksantcroos Similarity score: 0.8065

flowTorch - a Python library for analysis and reduced-order modeling of fluid flows Submitting author: @AndreWeiner Handling editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman (Active) Reviewers: @akaptano, @JaroslavHron, @salrm8, @hkjeldsberg Similarity score: 0.8059

flowMC: Normalizing flow enhanced sampling package for probabilistic inference in JAX Submitting author: @kazewong Handling editor: @rkurchin (Active) Reviewers: @matt-graham, @Daniel-Dodd Similarity score: 0.8015

⚠️ 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.

[Andrew-S-Rosen]

@danielskatz: Thanks and that's understandable. @arfon: we look forward to the review process. Thank you!

[arfon]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @arfon is now the editor

[arfon]

@jjmortensen @paulromano @hjoliver @rashatwi @jherasdo – :wave: would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The submission under consideration is Jobflow: Computational Workflows Made Simple: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5951

The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. You can learn more about the process in these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Based on your experience and previous publications in JOSS, we 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!

Many thanks Arfon

[jherasdo]

Hi Arfon!

Thank you so much for consider me as a reviewer for JOSS!

I do accept to be reviewer for this publication.

I have some questions since this is my first time being reviewer for your journal:

• There is any deadline to submit my revisions?
• I still need to read the guidelines that you provided, but could send me an example of peer-review for another article? (Just to see the whole process beforehand)

Let me know if you need anything else from my side!

Thank you so much! Dr. Javier Heras-Domingo

Missatge de Arfon Smith @.***> del dia dg., 22 d’oct. 2023 a les 13:07:

@jjmortensen https://github.com/jjmortensen @paulromano https://github.com/paulromano @hjoliver https://github.com/hjoliver @rashatwi https://github.com/rashatwi @jherasdo https://github.com/jherasdo – 👋 would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The submission under consideration is Jobflow: Computational Workflows Made Simple: #5951 https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5951

The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. You can learn more about the process in these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Based on your experience and previous publications in JOSS, we 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!

Many thanks Arfon

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5951#issuecomment-1774063905, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APNKCEZ7M6HCNHRQG4NT3TDYAT46JAVCNFSM6AAAAAA6AY7CR6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTONZUGA3DGOJQGU . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

-- Javier Heras Domingo

Mobile Phone: +34 635318220

Mail: @.***

[arfon]

I do accept to be reviewer for this publication.

Great stuff, thanks!

• There is any deadline to submit my revisions?

We generally ask for reviews to be completed in 4-6 weeks. As JOSS reviews are conversational in nature, it's a good idea to start sooner than that though.

• I still need to read the guidelines that you provided, but could send me an example of peer-review for another article? (Just to see the whole process beforehand)

Certainly! Here's a review for a recently-accepted paper in JOSS: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5776

[rashatwi]

Hi @arfon,

Yes, I'm available to review this work, but sometime around mid November if that's okay.

[arfon]

@editorialbot add @rashatwi as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@rashatwi added to the reviewers list!

[arfon]

@editorialbot add @jherasdo as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@jherasdo added to the reviewers list!

[arfon]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5995.

[arfon]

@rashatwi, @jherasdo, @Andrew-S-Rosen – see you over in #5995 where the actual review will take place.