[PRE REVIEW]: pyEQL: A Python interface for water chemistry

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@rkingsbury<!--end-author-handle-- (Ryan Kingsbury) Repository: https://github.com/rkingsbury/pyEQL Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss Version: v0.11.1 Editor: !--editor-->@lucydot<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @orionarcher, @JacksonBurns, @yuxuanzhuang Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/bdd9e247ea9736a0fdbbd5fe12bef7a6"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/bdd9e247ea9736a0fdbbd5fe12bef7a6/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/bdd9e247ea9736a0fdbbd5fe12bef7a6/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/bdd9e247ea9736a0fdbbd5fe12bef7a6)

Author instructions

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

@rkingsbury 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=0.15 s (443.5 files/s, 313928.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JSON                             1              0              0          33315
Python                          28           1810           3736           3951
Markdown                        23            541              0           1907
SVG                              1              1              1            738
YAML                             9             37             30            304
TeX                              1              0              0            189
INI                              1              9              0             82
TOML                             1              7              2             80
Jupyter Notebook                 2              0           1312             54
make                             1              6              8             15
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            68           2411           5089          40635
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1316

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/s10953-019-00871-5 is OK
- 10.1016/j.desal.2013.03.015 is OK
- 10.1039/C7NJ03597G is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2011.02.005 is OK
- 10.1016/s0378-3812(02)00178-4 is OK
- 10.1016/j.commatsci.2012.10.028 is OK
- 10.1063/1.4812323 is OK
- 10.1021/je2009329 is OK
- 10.1016/S0016-7037(97)81133-7 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

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:

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

ChemPy: A package useful for chemistry written in Python Submitting author: @bjodah Handling editor: @kyleniemeyer (Active) Reviewers: @bryanwweber Similarity score: 0.8126

SolvationAnalysis: A Python toolkit for understanding liquid solvation structure in classical molecular dynamics simulations Submitting author: @orionarcher Handling editor: @zhubonan (Active) Reviewers: @amritagos, @arose Similarity score: 0.8095

pyEQUIB Python Package, an addendum to proEQUIB: IDL Library for Plasma Diagnostics and Abundance Analysis Submitting author: @danehkar Handling editor: @arfon (Active) Reviewers: @arfon Similarity score: 0.8068

impedance.py: A Python package for electrochemical impedance analysis Submitting author: @mdmurbach Handling editor: @mbobra (Active) Reviewers: @ma-sadeghi, @EricaEgg Similarity score: 0.8040

py-pde: A Python package for solving partial differential equations Submitting author: @david-zwicker Handling editor: @xuanxu (Active) Reviewers: @celliern, @mstimberg Similarity score: 0.8038

⚠️ 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 considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[kthyng]

Hi @richardjgowers! Would you be able to edit this submission?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @richardjgowers as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[rkingsbury]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @rkingsbury, 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

[rkingsbury]

@editorialbot list reviewers

[editorialbot]

Please log in the JOSS Reviewers site to search through the list of current reviewers.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot @dhhagan as editor

[editorialbot]

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

@editorialbot commands

[kthyng]

@dhhagan Might you be able to edit this submission?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @dhhagan as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[kthyng]

@lucydot might you be able to edit this submission?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @lucydot as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[lucydot]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @lucydot is now the editor

[lucydot]

@orionarcher, @arose, @rangsimanketkaew - are you available to review this submission to JOSS?

[rkingsbury]

@lucydot since review has not started yet, can I request review of the latest released version (v0.11.1) rather than v0.9.2 (which was the latest when I submitted)?

[orionarcher]

Hi @lucydot. I should disclose that I know @rkingsbury and have provided (very minor) feedback on pyEQL in the past. If that's not an issue, I am more than happy to review this submission.

[lucydot]

Hi @rkingsbury - no problem, we can update version as needed. Just to double check - is v0.11.1 on the main branch?

[lucydot]

@editorialbot set v0.11.1 as version

[editorialbot]

Done! version is now v0.11.1

[lucydot]

Thanks for highlighting @orionarcher - I don't judge this to be a CoI, and will add you as reviewer

[lucydot]

@editorialbot add @orionarcher as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@orionarcher added to the reviewers list!

[lucydot]

@mdavezac @JacksonBurns @yuxuanzhuang - are you available to review this submission to JOSS?

[mdavezac]

Unfortunately, I just started another review for JOSS and can't commit to this one.

[lucydot]

thanks @mdavezac for updating us :)

[JacksonBurns]

@lucydot yes. I am available and eager! This looks very neat

[yuxuanzhuang]

@lucydot Yes! I am happy to review this submission.

[lucydot]

Hi @JacksonBurns @yuxuanzhuang - excellent news :) ✨

I will add you both as reviewers and then ask editorialbot to start the review.

If you haven't reviewed for JOSS before, you can find some detailed information about the review process on the documentation pages: reviewing for JOSS, review criteria, review checklist. You don't need to read this all (the essential instructions are given at the top of the review thread that editorialbot will generate), but it gives some context if wanted.

The key things that are different from standard journals are: i) everything happens in a Github review thread; ii) the review is a conversation back and forth - you do not need to do you review in a single step; iii) the review is structured in that you work your way through a checklist.

We ask that reviews are completed in about 4 weeks. We advise you start the review early, as it is an iterative process between reviewers and authors.

Any questions please just ask - and thanks again for agreeing to review.

[lucydot]

@editorialbot add @JacksonBurns as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@JacksonBurns added to the reviewers list!

[lucydot]

@editorialbot add @yuxuanzhuang as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@yuxuanzhuang added to the reviewers list!

[lucydot]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6295.