[PRE REVIEW]: KerrGeoPy: A Python Package for Computing Timelike Geodesics in Kerr Spacetime

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@syp2001<!--end-author-handle-- (Seyong Park) Repository: https://github.com/BlackHolePerturbationToolkit/KerrGeoPy Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper Version: v0.9.1 Editor: !--editor-->@xuanxu<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @Uddiptaatwork, @sterinaldi Managing EiC: Dan Foreman-Mackey

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/21ee313e418a9fed60099b33cafbd24b"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/21ee313e418a9fed60099b33cafbd24b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/21ee313e418a9fed60099b33cafbd24b/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/21ee313e418a9fed60099b33cafbd24b)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @syp2001. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@syp2001 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=0.18 s (549.5 files/s, 52357.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          17            724           1942           2712
Jupyter Notebook                 6              0           1716            438
Markdown                         2            133              0            288
TeX                              1             14              0            227
reStructuredText                65            409            395            149
YAML                             5             18             18            100
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            98           1310           4079           3949
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.8233425 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201935406 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1903.03686 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1907.06482 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.8108265 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.064007 is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/26/13/135002 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-6382/acf552 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.024027 is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/19/10/314 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1061

[editorialbot]

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

[dfm]

@syp2001 — Thanks for your submission! All the suitable JOSS editors are currently working at capacity so I'm going to "waitlist" this review until an editor with the relevant expertise is available to take it on. Thanks for your patience!

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

PyCS3: A Python toolbox for time-delay measurements in lensed quasars Submitting author: @martin-millon Handling editor: @arfon (Active) Reviewers: @danhey, @coljac Similarity score: 0.8160

GRChombo: An adaptable numerical relativity code for fundamental physics Submitting author: @kaclough Handling editor: @rkurchin (Active) Reviewers: @sbozzolo, @rashti-alireza Similarity score: 0.8156

Riroriro: Simulating gravitational waves and evaluating their detectability in Python Submitting author: @wvanzeist Handling editor: @dfm (Active) Reviewers: @GregoryAshton, @katiebreivik Similarity score: 0.8152

CWInPy: A Python package for inference with continuous gravitational-wave signals from pulsars Submitting author: @mattpitkin Handling editor: @dfm (Active) Reviewers: @GregoryAshton, @ColmTalbot Similarity score: 0.8130

kima: Exoplanet detection in radial velocities Submitting author: @j-faria Handling editor: @arfon (Active) Reviewers: @nespinoza Similarity score: 0.8126

⚠️ 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.

[xuanxu]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @xuanxu is now the editor

[xuanxu]

:wave: @sterinaldi / @kaclough / @j-faria: would you be willing to review this paper? I think your expertise within Astrophysics makes all of you a great fit for this submission.

[KAClough]

@xuanxu I am afraid I don't have time at the moment but I will ask around our collaboration for volunteers :-)

[xuanxu]

@KAClough ok, thanks!

[j-faria]

@xuanxu I'm sorry but at this time I'm not available to review this paper

[sterinaldi]

@xuanxu I might be available to review this paper. The thing is that I'm not extremely familiar with the subject, so I don't know if I'm the right person. If no other referee is found, however, I'm happy to help. I may just need more time than the expected 2 weeks.

[xuanxu]

@sterinaldi OK, thanks! I'll try to find another referee and probably add you as second reviewer then.

[xuanxu]

:wave: @duetosymmetry, @duncanmmacleod would you be willing to review this paper? I think your past experience with software packages for gravitational waves and black holes would come handy here.

[xuanxu]

:wave: @martin-millon, @Uddiptaatwork would you be willing to review this paper? Your experience with Python and mathematical physics can be of help here.

[Uddiptaatwork]

@xuanxu Yes, I can review.

[xuanxu]

@Uddiptaatwork that's great, thanks! I'll start the review issue now

[xuanxu]

@editorialbot add @Uddiptaatwork as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@Uddiptaatwork added to the reviewers list!

[xuanxu]

@editorialbot add @sterinaldi as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@sterinaldi 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/6587.