[PRE REVIEW]: pymnet: A Multilayer-Networks Library for Python

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@ercco<!--end-author-handle-- (Tarmo Nurmi) Repository: https://github.com/mnets/pymnet Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): publication Version: 1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@danielskatz<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @ClaudMor, @pitmonticone, @nwlandry Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/db2862edc9b952d110f791d1559d7e93"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/db2862edc9b952d110f791d1559d7e93/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/db2862edc9b952d110f791d1559d7e93/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/db2862edc9b952d110f791d1559d7e93)

Author instructions

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

@ercco 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 1.90  T=0.11 s (615.3 files/s, 152590.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          45           2305           3040           9324
reStructuredText                 9            209            131            320
make                             1             28              6            143
TeX                              1             13              0            124
Markdown                         2             37              0            101
HTML                             1             41              0             99
YAML                             4             25             10             92
TOML                             1              6              0             54
INI                              1              0              0             12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            65           2664           3187          10269
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   252  Mikko Kivelä
   147  Tarmo Nurmi
    21  dataspider
    14  Arash Badie-Modiri
     3  Kivelä Mikko
     2  Corinna Coupette
     2  Luiz Irber
     1  DaminK
     1  Pietro Monticone
     1  alexguirre
     1  sala515

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.21105/joss.05116 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Multilayer Networks
- 10.1109/tnse.2017.2753963 may be a valid DOI for title: Isomorphisms in Multilayer Networks
- 10.1093/comnet/cnac005 may be a valid DOI for title: Graphlets in Multilayer Networks
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Subnetwork Enumeration Algorithms for Multilayer N...
- 10.1007/978-3-642-19754-3_16 may be a valid DOI for title: Conflict Propagation and Component Recursion for C...
- 10.1137/1.9781611972870.13 may be a valid DOI for title: Engineering an Efficient Canonical Labeling Tool f...
- 10.1038/srep04547 may be a valid DOI for title: Revealing the Hidden Language of Complex Networks
- 10.1109/tem.2020.3032160 may be a valid DOI for title: Network Proximity and Communities in Innovation Cl...
- 10.1007/s41109-020-00301-2 may be a valid DOI for title: The Multiplex Nature of Global Financial Contagion...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Structure of triadic relations in multiplex networ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Centralized scientific communities are less likely...
- 10.31234/osf.io/kgc2h may be a valid DOI for title: Social network analysis for social neuroscientists
- 10.1007/s41109-021-00429-9 may be a valid DOI for title: Orientations and matrix function-based centralitie...

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1215

✅ 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:

[danielskatz]

👋 @ercco - thanks for your submission. While I look for an editor, you could work on the possibly missing DOIs that editorialbot suggests, but note that some may be incorrect. Please feel free to make changes to your .bib file, then use the command @editorialbot check references to check again, and the command @editorialbot generate pdf when the references are right to make a new PDF. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

[ercco]

👋 @danielskatz Hello and thank you for considering our submission! I have updated the missing DOIs now.

[ercco]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1093/comnet/cnu016 is OK
- 10.1109/TNSE.2017.2753963 is OK
- 10.1093/comnet/cnac005 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2308.00083 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-19754-3_16 is OK
- 10.1137/1.9781611972870.13 is OK
- 10.1038/srep04547 is OK
- 10.1109/TEM.2020.3032160 is OK
- 10.1007/s41109-020-00301-2 is OK
- 10.1088/1367-2630/17/7/073029 is OK
- 10.7554/eLife.43094 is OK
- 10.1093/scan/nsaa069 is OK
- 10.1007/s41109-021-00429-9 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05116 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[ercco]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

I'll go ahead and edit this

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @danielskatz is now the editor

[danielskatz]

@ercco - please suggest ~5 potential reviewers, by mentioning them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @) if they are on GitHub and just by giving their names/affiliations if they are not. You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission, but your suggestions don't need to be limited to this set of people.

[ercco]

First suggestion would be Valentin Danchev (valdanchev) http://valdanchev.github.io/

[ercco]

Another is Claudio Moroni (ClaudMor)

[ercco]

I'll look into finding more!

[danielskatz]

👋 @valdanchev & @ClaudMor - Would one or both of you be willing to review this submission to 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

[ClaudMor]

Dear @danielskatz,

Both @pitmonticone and I would agree to review this package.

In accordance with the Conflict of Interest rules, I must disclose that we are listed as contributors to the software under review. This is due to a single commit where we corrected a few typographical errors. Beyond this minor contribution, we have not been involved in the development of this package and have had no other prior, concurrent or subsequent interactions with the authors.

If this does not present a conflict, we are prepared to proceed with the review, given the close similarity of this package to our previous work.

[danielskatz]

@ClaudMor and @pitmonticone - thanks for agreeing/volunteering. I'm happy to have both of you, as the conflict you describe is one we can waive. However, I would also like to find another reviewer, so at this point, I will add both of you to the system, but we won't start until we get one more reviewer.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @ClaudMor as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@ClaudMor added to the reviewers list!

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @pitmonticone as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@pitmonticone added to the reviewers list!

[ercco]

We would like to also suggest the following potential reviewers: Leo Torres (leotrs) https://github.com/leotrs Nicholas Landry (nwlandry) https://github.com/nwlandry Louis Boucherie (LCB0B) https://github.com/LCB0B

[danielskatz]

@leotrs, @nwlandry, @LCB0B - Would one (or even two) of you be willing to review this submission to 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

[nwlandry]

@danielskatz --- I'm happy to review!

[danielskatz]

@nwlandry - thanks! I'll add you and see if we can get one more volunteer, but likely start fairly soon in any case.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @nwlandry as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@nwlandry added to the reviewers list!

[danielskatz]

oh, sorry, I forgot we already had two reviewers. We'll go ahead and start, in a new issue that will be created momentarily

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6930.