[REVIEW]: DWBuilder: A code to generate ferroelectric/ferroelastic domain walls and multi-material atomic interface structures

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@mzkhalid039@rkurchin<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @mailhexu, @Anshuman5 Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/eeae372c75342085351f92af4ca165db"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/eeae372c75342085351f92af4ca165db/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/eeae372c75342085351f92af4ca165db/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/eeae372c75342085351f92af4ca165db)

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

@mailhexu & @Anshuman5, 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 @mailhexu

📝 Checklist for @Anshuman5

editorialbot commented 1 week 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 week ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.03 s (439.2 files/s, 99144.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                           5            397            235           1008
TeX                              1             23              0            221
Markdown                         2             53              0            148
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            209            126
YAML                             2             11             10             42
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            11            484            454           1545
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   137  Muhammad Zeeshan Khalid
     3  Brian Zalewski
     1  mzkhalid039
     1  smselbach

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 891

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf. Problem with ORCID (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7866-3870) for M Khalid. ORCID looks to be the wrong length.

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

License info:

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

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Ferroelectric domain walls for nanotechnology
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Domain wall nanoelectronics
- 10.1088/0953-8984/27/46/463003 may be a valid DOI for title: Functional domain walls in multiferroics
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Physics and applications of charged domain walls
- 10.1038/ncomms8361 may be a valid DOI for title: A diode for ferroelectric domain-wall motion
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Functional electronic inversion layers at ferroele...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Nonvolatile ferroelectric domain wall memory
- 10.1063/5.0009185 may be a valid DOI for title: Intrinsic and extrinsic conduction contributions a...
- 10.1103/physrevresearch.2.033159 may be a valid DOI for title: Domain wall mobility and roughening in doped ferro...
- 10.1103/physrevmaterials.2.114405 may be a valid DOI for title: Charged domain walls in improper ferroelectric hex...
- 10.1103/physrevlett.95.257601 may be a valid DOI for title: Effect of epitaxial strain on the spontaneous pola...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: BiFeO_3 domain wall energies and structures: a com...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Epitaxial BiFeO_3 multiferroic thin film heterostr...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Bloch-type domain walls in rhombohedral BaTiO_3
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Ab initio study of ferroelectric domain walls in P...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Improper origin of polar displacements at CaTiO_3 ...
- 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2005.01.040 may be a valid DOI for title: Edge-to-edge matching model for predicting orienta...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Atomistic modelling of Fe-Al and α-AlFeSi intermet...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Ab-initio study of atomic structure and mechanical...
- 10.1016/j.promfg.2018.07.341 may be a valid DOI for title: DFT calculations based insight into bonding charac...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: First-principles study of tensile and shear streng...
- 10.1016/j.commatsci.2021.110319 may be a valid DOI for title: First-principles study of tensile and shear streng...
- 10.4028/www.scientific.net/msf.941.2349 may be a valid DOI for title: A first-principles study of the Al (001)/Fe (0-11)...

INVALID DOIs

- None

mzkhalid039 commented 1 week ago

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf. Problem with ORCID (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7866-3870) for M Khalid. ORCID looks to be the wrong length.

I have fixed this problem. I hope it will be able to generate pdf now.

rkurchin 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:

mailhexu commented 1 week ago

Review checklist for @mailhexu

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/mzkhalid039/DWBuilder?
[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 (@mzkhalid039) 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.
[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?
[ ] 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?

Anshuman5 commented 1 week ago

Review checklist for @Anshuman5

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/mzkhalid039/DWBuilder?
[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 (@mzkhalid039) 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