[PRE REVIEW]: Paicos: A Python package for analysis of (cosmological) simulations performed with Arepo

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@tberlok<!--end-author-handle-- (Thomas Berlok) Repository: https://github.com/tberlok/paicos Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper Version: 0.1.8 Editor: !--editor-->@JBorrow<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @ttricco, @kyleaoman Managing EiC: Dan Foreman-Mackey

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2ffa030de39bcba942d6a552b5e8f7c7"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2ffa030de39bcba942d6a552b5e8f7c7/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2ffa030de39bcba942d6a552b5e8f7c7/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2ffa030de39bcba942d6a552b5e8f7c7)

Author instructions

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

@tberlok 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=0.13 s (884.1 files/s, 154630.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          71           2222           2170           6117
Jupyter Notebook                16              0           5074           1628
Cython                           6            249            204            656
Markdown                         9            150              0            512
TeX                              1             33              0            391
YAML                             6             35             47            170
make                             2             11              8             38
Bourne Shell                     1             14             14             16
TOML                             1              0              0              5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           113           2714           7517           9533
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1141

[editorialbot]

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf. Problem with ORCID (0000-0000-0000-0000) for Thomas Berlok. Invalid ORCID.

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.21703 is OK
- 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 is OK
- 10.1145/2929908.2929916 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02430 is OK
- 10.1145/2833157.2833162 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2307.06345 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x is OK
- 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stt428 is OK
- 10.1038/nature03597 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2010.118 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-4af1f417-011 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 is OK
- 10.1038/s42254-019-0127-2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1093/mnras/stac1882 may be a valid DOI for title: Hydromagnetic waves in an expanding universe - cosmological MHD code tests using analytic solutions

INVALID DOIs

- None

[dfm]

@tberlok — 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!

In the meantime, can you update the manuscript to include the right ORCID?

[tberlok]

@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:

pocoMC: A Python package for accelerated Bayesian inference in astronomy and cosmology Submitting author: @minaskar Handling editor: @dfm (Active) Reviewers: @kazewong, @marylou-gabrie Similarity score: 0.8186

PICOS: A Python interface to conic optimization solvers Submitting author: @Viech Handling editor: @melissawm (Retired) Reviewers: @marwahaha, @GuillaumeDerval Similarity score: 0.8147

SkyPy: A package for modelling the Universe Submitting author: @rrjbca Handling editor: @arfon (Active) Reviewers: @cescalara, @rmorgan10 Similarity score: 0.8144

PyAstroPol: A Python package for the instrumental polarization analysis of the astronomical optics. Submitting author: @hemanthpruthvi Handling editor: @pibion (Retired) Reviewers: @aquilesC, @caldarolamartin, @mwcraig Similarity score: 0.8121

arcos and arcospy: R and Python packages for accessing the DEA ARCOS database from 2006 - 2014 Submitting author: @jeffcsauer Handling editor: @bmcfee (Active) Reviewers: @jaeyk, @edonnachie Similarity score: 0.8108

⚠️ 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.

[tberlok]

Thanks, I have updated my ORCID.

I would also add that this paper shares several similarities with the one that we have just submitted.

[JBorrow]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @JBorrow is now the editor

[JBorrow]

Hi @tberlok! I will be the handling editor for this submission. You're right, this looks like a very nice package that has lots of similarities with swiftsimio.

The next step is for us to find some reviewers for the submission. If you have any suggestions, I invite you to let me know by putting their GitHub usernames in a comment, but please do not 'mention' them at this stage (e.g. you would write JBorrow, not @JBorrow).

[JBorrow]

Hi @kyleaoman, would you be interested in reviewing this package for JOSS? Our review guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html should you want to take a look before agreeing to review.

[tberlok]

@JBorrow: Many thanks for swiftly taking on the paper as editor!

Here are some additional referee suggestions from the list:

harpolea, munkm, AstroBarker, ddhendriks

[JBorrow]

Hi @ttricco, would you be interested in reviewing this package for JOSS? Our review guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html should you want to take a look before agreeing to review.

[ttricco]

Hi @ttricco, would you be interested in reviewing this package for JOSS? Our review guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html should you want to take a look before agreeing to review.

Hi @JBorrow, yes I am happy to review.

[kyleaoman]

Hi @kyleaoman, would you be interested in reviewing this package for JOSS? Our review guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html should you want to take a look before agreeing to review.

Yes, I can review.

[JBorrow]

@editorialbot add @ttricco as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@ttricco added to the reviewers list!

[JBorrow]

@editorialbot add @kyleaoman as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@kyleaoman added to the reviewers list!

[JBorrow]

Apologies for the typos there, but thank you so much @kyleaoman and @ttricco for agreeing to review! We will move forward with the review thread next. As a reminder our reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html.

JOSS is a little different to typical journals as the review proceeds entirely in public, and uses a checklist-based system mainly based upon the software package and documentation. Please do let me know if you have any questions.

[JBorrow]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6296.