[PRE REVIEW]: pyRTC: An open-source Python solution for kHz real-time control of adaptive optics systems

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@jacotay7<!--end-author-handle-- (Jacob Taylor) Repository: https://github.com/jacotay7/pyRTC Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@arfon<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @joseph-long, @joao-aveiro, @sefffal Managing EiC: Dan Foreman-Mackey

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/823c5feae7710aaf4ceb86adeda8a621"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/823c5feae7710aaf4ceb86adeda8a621/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/823c5feae7710aaf4ceb86adeda8a621/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/823c5feae7710aaf4ceb86adeda8a621)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @jacotay7. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@jacotay7 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]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1117/12.2630698 is OK
- 10.1117/12.2562822 is OK
- 10.1364/AO.49.006354 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.06 s (524.6 files/s, 82966.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          23            669            497           2322
YAML                             3             13             28            158
Jupyter Notebook                 2              0            900            116
Markdown                         2             51              0            104
TeX                              1              2              0             43
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            31            735           1425           2743
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1072

[dfm]

@jacotay7 — 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]

: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:

Open Source Optical Coherence Tomography Software Submitting author: @spectralcode Handling editor: @arfon (Active) Reviewers: @jdavidli, @brandondube Similarity score: 0.8142

A Framework to Quality Control Oceanographic Data Submitting author: @castelao Handling editor: @kthyng (Active) Reviewers: @jessicaaustin, @evanleeturner Similarity score: 0.8112

openEyeTrack - A high speed multi-threaded eye tracker for head-fixed applications Submitting author: @chand-lab Handling editor: @cMadan (Active) Reviewers: @conradsnicta, @thejanzimmermann Similarity score: 0.8095

adrt: approximate discrete Radon transform for Python Submitting author: @karlotness Handling editor: @diehlpk (Active) Reviewers: @zhangjy-ge, @fruzsinaagocs Similarity score: 0.8089

Pybotics: Python Toolbox for Robotics Submitting author: @engnadeau Handling editor: @kyleniemeyer (Active) Reviewers: @adi3, @CameronDevine Similarity score: 0.8085

⚠️ 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.

[arfon]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @arfon is now the editor

[arfon]

@jacotay7 – could you take a look a this list of potential reviewers and identify a few people who would be good candidates to review this submission? Alternatively, if you know of people in your field who don't have a conflict and might be able to give this a good review, I'd love to hear suggestions!

[arfon]

@andrewpaulreeves @matthewtownson @jfsauvage @joao-aveiro :wave: would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The submission under consideration is pyRTC: An open-source Python solution for kHz real-time control of adaptive optics systems

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, 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

[joao-aveiro]

Hi @arfon! Thank you for the invitation. I can review this submission on the basis of general OSS development quality and compliance with the journal's guidelines, as well as basic AO and RTC scientific pertinence and correctness. Nevertheless, due to my limited expertise on the latter, I think it would be beneficial to include another reviewer more knowledgeable on these scientific fields.

[jacotay7]

@jacotay7 – could you take a look a this list of potential reviewers and identify a few people who would be good candidates to review this submission? Alternatively, if you know of people in your field who don't have a conflict and might be able to give this a good review, I'd love to hear suggestions!

Some suggestions from the field: @nour-sf @joseph-long @sefffal

[joseph-long]

@dfm and I were just talking about this submission at lunch! Have never reviewed for JOSS before but would be happy to give it a go, perhaps with @joao-aveiro's help

[sefffal]

I too would be happy to review. I'm working on a related RTC project in Julia so the subject matter is currently front of mind.

[arfon]

@dfm and I were just talking about this submission at lunch! Have never reviewed for JOSS before but would be happy to give it a go, perhaps with @joao-aveiro's help

Whoah! Hi @joseph-long! Thanks for agreeing to help out here.

Hi @arfon! Thank you for the invitation. I can review this submission on the basis of general OSS development quality and compliance with the journal's guidelines, as well as basic AO and RTC scientific pertinence and correctness. Nevertheless, due to my limited expertise on the latter, I think it would be beneficial to include another reviewer more knowledgeable on these scientific fields.

@joao-aveiro – thanks so much!

I too would be happy to review. I'm working on a related RTC project in Julia so the subject matter is currently front of mind.

🙇 thank you @sefffal.

I'll go ahead and add you all now and start the review ⚡

[arfon]

@editorialbot add @joseph-long as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@joseph-long added to the reviewers list!

[arfon]

@editorialbot add @joao-aveiro as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@joao-aveiro added to the reviewers list!

[arfon]

@editorialbot add @sefffal as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@sefffal 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/6466.

[arfon]

@joseph-long, @joao-aveiro, @sefffal, @jacotay7 – see you all over in #6466 where the actual review will take place.

[nour-sf]

Hi Alll, Let me know if there is a need of another reviewer :). Best, Nour

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 1:10 PM Arfon Smith @.***> wrote:

@joseph-long https://github.com/joseph-long, @joao-aveiro https://github.com/joao-aveiro, @sefffal https://github.com/sefffal, @jacotay7 https://github.com/jacotay7 – see you all over in #6466 https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6466 where the actual review will take place.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6316#issuecomment-1989345340, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHRF3A7DBEQINC76PDOWU5LYXYFUXAVCNFSM6AAAAABCXLURBCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSOBZGM2DKMZUGA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[matthewtownson]

I am also happy to do this if you are still in need of reviewers with expertise on the Adaptive Optics and RTC side.

[arfon]

Thanks @nour-sf and @matthewtownson – I think we're good for reviewers now 🙇