search

openjournals / joss-reviews

Reviews for the Journal of Open Source Software
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
720 stars 38 forks source link

[REVIEW]: KerrGeoPy: A Python Package for Computing Timelike Geodesics in Kerr Spacetime #6587

Closed editorialbot closed 4 months ago

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

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: v0.9.3 Editor: !--editor-->@xuanxu<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @Uddiptaatwork, @sterinaldi Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.11386563

Status

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)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@Uddiptaatwork & @sterinaldi, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review. First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @xuanxu know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @sterinaldi

📝 Checklist for @Uddiptaatwork

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

Hello humans, 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 commented 6 months ago 
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 commented 6 months ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.09 s (1039.5 files/s, 99045.4 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   104  Se Yong Park
    24  Seyong Park
    21  Seyong
     2  Zachary Nasipak
editorialbot commented 6 months ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1061

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU General Public License v3.0 (Check here for OSI approval)

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

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

xuanxu commented 6 months ago

👋 Hi @Uddiptaatwork and @sterinaldi, and thank you for agreeing to review this submission for KerrGeoPy !

The review will take place in this issue, and you can generate your individual reviewer checklists by asking editorialbot directly with @editorialbot generate my checklist

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#6587 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

As you go over the submission, please check any items on your reviewer checklist that you feel have been satisfied. If you aren't sure how to get started, please see the JOSS reviewer guidelines -- and of course, feel free to ping me (@xuanxu) with any questions !

We aim for reviews to be completed within four weeks, or six weeks at latest. Please let me know if either of you require some more time. We can also use editorialbot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

If you any questions or concerns arise, please feel free to ask here or via email. And thank you again !

sterinaldi commented 6 months ago

Thanks @xuanxu! I'll start the review in the next few days.

sterinaldi commented 6 months ago

Review checklist for @sterinaldi

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

xuanxu commented 6 months ago

👋 @Uddiptaatwork, @sterinaldi Can you update us on the progress of your review?

xuanxu commented 6 months ago

@Uddiptaatwork I've noticed you have not created your review checklist yet, please do so by running this command in a separate comment:

@editorialbot generate my checklist
sterinaldi commented 6 months ago

Hi @xuanxu, sorry for the late reply, I had a few hectic days. So far, I managed to install the code on a fresh environment, run the automated tests and played a bit with the code, which seems to work well so far. I think I'll be able to have a more thorough look at the documentation and the paper by the end of next week.

Uddiptaatwork commented 5 months ago

Review checklist for @Uddiptaatwork

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

sterinaldi commented 5 months ago

Hi @syp2001, I was looking for some indications about how to contribute to the code but I couldn't find any – could you please tell me whether if this is specified somewhere or it's still to be added? Thanks!

sterinaldi commented 5 months ago

Hi @xuanxu, I completed the checklist. Caveat the contribution point (see comment above), I'm happy with the package and the paper and, as soon as that point is addressed, this submission has green light from my side.

syp2001 commented 5 months ago

Hi @sterinaldi, sorry for the late reply. There are currently no community guidelines specified, but I am working on writing them and they should hopefully be up within the next few days.

sterinaldi commented 5 months ago

Thanks! I found this template pretty useful, myself: https://github.com/nayafia/contributing-template

xuanxu commented 5 months ago

@Uddiptaatwork any update on how your review is going?

syp2001 commented 5 months ago

Hi @sterinaldi, sorry again for the delay. I finally had time to write the guidelines and they are up at https://github.com/BlackHolePerturbationToolkit/KerrGeoPy/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md now.

sterinaldi commented 5 months ago

Thanks @syp2001! The guidelines looks fine with me, very nice work overall! @xuanxu – Green light from my side.

xuanxu commented 5 months ago

Thanks @sterinaldi! can you confirm you recommend the submission for publication?

sterinaldi commented 5 months ago

Yes, I confirm that I recommend this paper for publication.

Uddiptaatwork commented 5 months ago

Apologies for the delay, we were going through a few closures at our institute due to extraneous (geopolitical) reasons.

I just finished going through the paper, documentation and currently running tests for a final sanity check. The paper itself and the documentation looks great and definitely up to par. The installation on Linux and MacOS(intel) was seamless.

I will get back to you in an hour with the sanity checks.

Uddiptaatwork commented 5 months ago

I recommend this paper for publication and would like to congratulate the authors for their great work! Thank you.

xuanxu commented 5 months ago

@Uddiptaatwork Thanks!

Let's move forward

xuanxu commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

xuanxu commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 5 months ago 
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 commented 5 months ago

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

xuanxu commented 5 months ago

@syp2001 looks like we're close to being done here. Please merge this PR and give your own paper a final proof reading.

xuanxu commented 5 months ago

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance

xuanxu commented 5 months ago

@syp2001 Please go through the "Author tasks" bullet list above (you can make a checklist for yourself if that helps) and let me know when you're finished with the actions.

syp2001 commented 4 months ago

@xuanxu I have finished going through the checklist. The version number is v0.9.3 and the zenodo DOI is 10.5281/zenodo.11386563

xuanxu commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot set v0.9.3 as version

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

Done! version is now v0.9.3

xuanxu commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.11386563 as archive

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.11386563

xuanxu commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

xuanxu commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 4 months ago 
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 commented 4 months ago

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

xuanxu commented 4 months ago

Looking good!

xuanxu commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 4 months ago 
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
editorialbot commented 4 months ago 
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 commented 4 months ago

:wave: @openjournals/aass-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof :point_right::page_facing_up: Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/5414, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

dfm commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

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

dfm commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 4 months ago 
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...