[REVIEW]: SAnTex: A Python-based Library for Seismic Anisotropy Calculation

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@utpal-singh<!--end-author-handle-- (Utpal Singh) Repository: https://github.com/utpal-singh/SAnTex Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main Version: v1.2 Editor: !--editor-->@rkurchin<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @elena-pascal, @SunilAnandatheertha Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/aa2dd813064832aa84422d04abd0d5fc"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/aa2dd813064832aa84422d04abd0d5fc/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/aa2dd813064832aa84422d04abd0d5fc/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/aa2dd813064832aa84422d04abd0d5fc)

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

@elena-pascal & @SunilAnandatheertha, 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 @rkurchin 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 @elena-pascal

[editorialbot]

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]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/0191-8141(89)90042-4 is OK
- 10.1002/2016GC006705 is OK
- 10.3390/min11121322 is OK
- 10.1002/2017GL075647 is OK
- 10.1029/JB074i025p05961 is OK
- 10.1038/nature21359 is OK
- 10.1093/petrology/29.3.625 is OK
- 10.1029/2010GC003296 is OK
- 10.1144/M56-2020-16 is OK
- 10.1029/2019GC008289 is OK
- 10.1002/2015GC005964 is OK
- 10.1016/j.tecto.2006.02.011 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev.earth.36.031207.124120 is OK
- 10.1016/j.tecto.2015.07.026 is OK
- 10.1016/j.epsl.2005.01.024 is OK
- 10.1002/2016RG000552 is OK
- 10.1029/JB074i025p05973 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2012.05.031 is OK
- 10.1029/2003GC000614 is OK
- 10.1029/GD016p0111 is OK
- 10.1029/2018GC007931 is OK
- 10.1029/93GL02791 is OK
- 10.1029/98JB01489 is OK
- 10.1029/2000JB900041 is OK
- 10.1107/S1600576720011103 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=1.20 s (50.1 files/s, 907314.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JSON                             4              0              0           4408
Python                          34            772           1097           2355
TeX                              1             26              0            442
Jupyter Notebook                 6              0        1076485            321
reStructuredText                 9             70            131             89
Markdown                         2             36              0             82
YAML                             2              8              5             30
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            60            924        1077726           7762
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   155  utpal-singh
    17  Sinan Özaydın
     6  Utpal Singh
     3  usin8611

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1114

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

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

[editorialbot]

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

[elena-pascal]

Review checklist for @elena-pascal

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

• [ ] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/utpal-singh/SAnTex?
• [ ] 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 (@utpal-singh) 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?