[REVIEW]: rgfrosh: A Python package for calculating shock conditions using real gas equations of state

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@corykinney@kyleniemeyer<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @cartemic, @blackspur Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/6bb745c8b115f25cee8b6fb251a9a2ff"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/6bb745c8b115f25cee8b6fb251a9a2ff/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/6bb745c8b115f25cee8b6fb251a9a2ff/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/6bb745c8b115f25cee8b6fb251a9a2ff)

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

@cartemic & @blackspur, 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 @kyleniemeyer 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 @cartemic

📝 Checklist for @blackspur

editorialbot commented 1 month 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 1 month ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.02 s (1522.8 files/s, 111926.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                           7            241            306            666
Markdown                        13            157              0            408
YAML                             4             22              0            176
TeX                              1              4              0             51
JavaScript                       1              1              0             15
TOML                             1              0              0              6
CSS                              1              0              1              4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            28            425            307           1326
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    85  Cory Kinney
     2  corykinney

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1002/ijch.199600044 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.8137090 is OK
- 10.1021/ie4033999 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Extreme-Pressure Ignition Studies of Methane and N...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: NIST reference fluid thermodynamic and transport p...

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 762

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

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

kyleniemeyer commented 1 month ago

👋 @corykinney @cartemic @blackspur the review will actually take place in here. Please note the reviewer instructions (particularly for generating your checklists) at the top of the issue.

cartemic commented 3 weeks ago

Review checklist for @cartemic

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/VasuLab/rgfrosh?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@corykinney) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

cartemic commented 1 week ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

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

kyleniemeyer commented 1 week ago

Hey @cartemic and @blackspur, how are your reviews going?

cartemic commented 1 week ago

@kyleniemeyer It is going well, thank you for following up; my schedule has been hectic lately and this was a useful reminder that I forgot to leave a comment! I have reviewed the package and the paper and raised some issues, which @corykinney has addressed, and pending @blackspur's review I am happy to recommend rgfrosh for publication.

blackspur commented 5 days ago

Review checklist for @blackspur

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/VasuLab/rgfrosh?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[ ] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@corykinney) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[ ] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[ ] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[ ] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[ ] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

[ ] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[ ] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[ ] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[ ] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[ ] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[ ] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[ ] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[ ] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[ ] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[ ] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[ ] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[ ] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[ ] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[ ] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

openjournals / joss-reviews