[PRE REVIEW]: BayesEoR: Bayesian 21-cm Power Spectrum Estimation from Interferometric Visibilities

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@jburba<!--end-author-handle-- (Jacob Burba) Repository: https://github.com/PSims/BayesEoR Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@dfm<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @musoke, @zonca Managing EiC: Dan Foreman-Mackey

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e5972aa5021ae9492a44d55574119747"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e5972aa5021ae9492a44d55574119747/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e5972aa5021ae9492a44d55574119747/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e5972aa5021ae9492a44d55574119747)

Author instructions

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

@jburba 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=0.09 s (425.7 files/s, 114474.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          22            890           3065           5174
reStructuredText                 5            126             61            128
TeX                              1              6              0            117
Markdown                         2             41              0            114
YAML                             4              6             24             73
TOML                             1              4              0             35
C                                1             15             23             28
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            37           1092           3180           5678
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1093/mnras/stw1768 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz153 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz1888 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stad401 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa327 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa414 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1c78 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 589

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a valid open source license

[dfm]

@jburba — 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:

The Python Sky Model 3 software Submitting author: @zonca Handling editor: @christinahedges (Retired) Reviewers: @patricialarsen, @smsharma Similarity score: 0.8434

EMBERS: Experimental Measurement of BEam Responses with Satellites Submitting author: @amanchokshi Handling editor: @mbobra (Active) Reviewers: @teuben, @mbobra Similarity score: 0.8316

21cmFAST v3: A Python-integrated C code for generating 3D realizations of the cosmic 21cm signal. Submitting author: @steven-murray Handling editor: @dfm (Active) Reviewers: @sambit-giri, @sultan-hassan Similarity score: 0.8235

Riroriro: Simulating gravitational waves and evaluating their detectability in Python Submitting author: @wvanzeist Handling editor: @dfm (Active) Reviewers: @GregoryAshton, @katiebreivik Similarity score: 0.8196

The Pulsar Signal Simulator: A Python package for simulating radio signal data from pulsars Submitting author: @Hazboun6 Handling editor: @mbobra (Active) Reviewers: @JBorrow, @arjunsavel Similarity score: 0.8175

⚠️ 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.

[dfm]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

@jburba — Thanks for your patience! I'm now available to edit this submission. My first step is to recruit two reviewers. If you have any recommendations from this list or your professional networks, please feel free to suggest them.

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @dfm is now the editor

[dfm]

:wave: @steven-murray, @sterinaldi, @musoke — Would any of you be available and willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[steven-murray]

@dfm I would be happy to review but have a slight conflict of interest as I am in the same collaboration(s) as some of the authors.

[dfm]

@steven-murray — Thanks for your response! I'd love to have you review if it makes sense.

The JOSS Conflict of Interest policy is available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html#joss-conflict-of-interest-policy

As you can see, depending on the details of the collaborations and whether or not you feel you can be unbiased, this could be waived. Let me know what you think, and I'm happy to chat more via email if that would be useful. Thanks again!

[sterinaldi]

Hi @dfm – sorry but I already signed up for another review, I'm afraid I don't have the time to follow both of them.

[dfm]

@sterinaldi — Sorry about that, I'm normally better at checking that, but I must have mixed it up this time! Best of luck with the other review, and thanks for the response.

[sterinaldi]

No problem at all. I am not formally assigned yet, so it probably doesn't show up because of this.

[steven-murray]

@dfm having read the CoI policy, I don't think I can do the review -- both @jburba and @PSims actively work in at least one collaboration that I am also currently active in (and also have been in the same institution). I'd like to think I could be unbiased in any case, but objectively speaking, probably I cannot.

[dfm]

@steven-murray — Thanks for checking and no problem at all - it's always better to be conservative on this front!

[dfm]

:wave: @paddyroddy, @sibirrer, @jrs65 — Would any of you be available and willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[musoke]

@dfm, apologies for the delay - I have been moving things off my todo list.
I have had a brief look through this package and it looks cool. I am available to review if you still want me.

[dfm]

@editorialbot add @musoke as reviewer

Thanks @musoke! I've added you as a reviewer and hopefully we'll get a second one lined up soon. At that point I'll start the review in a new thread.

[editorialbot]

@musoke added to the reviewers list!

[sibirrer]

👋 @paddyroddy, @sibirrer, @jrs65 — Would any of you be available and willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

Hi @dfm, I am currently overwhelmed with other grants and reviewing duties and hence I decline this time. Apologies

[paddyroddy]

@dfm I'm currently preoccupied with a promotion application amongst other things, so would rather not. However, if you are desperate, I could do it.

[dfm]

@sibirrer, @paddyroddy — Thanks for your responses and no stress! I'm sure we can find someone else. Good luck with your other work!

[dfm]

:wave: @zonca — Would you be available and willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[zonca]

@dfm, yes, I can

[dfm]

@editorialbot add @zonca as reviewer

🎉 Thanks @zonca!! Now that we have two reviewers, I'll get the main review thread started. I'll have a lot more information for everyone over there. Thanks all!

[editorialbot]

@zonca added to the reviewers list!

[dfm]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6667.