[REVIEW]: Idiomatic Ephemeris Sourcing and Parsing in Julia

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@cadojo@adonath<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @tamasgal, @andrew-saydjari Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2ecaf389e70086ec2b560cb10f454267"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2ecaf389e70086ec2b560cb10f454267/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2ecaf389e70086ec2b560cb10f454267/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2ecaf389e70086ec2b560cb10f454267)

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

@tamasgal & @andrew-saydjari, 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 @adonath 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 @andrew-saydjari

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

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1016/0032-0633(95)00107-7 may be a valid DOI for title: Ancillary Data Services of NASA’s Navigation and A...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Status of the JPL horizons ephemeris system

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.05 s (1309.8 files/s, 170565.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                           20           1760           2945           1478
Sass                             7            307            312            823
Markdown                        20            237              0            815
YAML                             7             39             15            315
TOML                            14             19              0            156
TeX                              1              1              0             17
Bourne Shell                     1              1              0              4
make                             1              0              0              2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            71           2364           3272           3610
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   143  Joey Carpinelli
    74  cadojo
    68  Joe Carpinelli
    35  Joe(y) Carpinelli
     8  CompatHelper Julia
     1  github-actions[bot]

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 807

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

License info:

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

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:

adonath commented 1 week ago

@cadojo, @tamasgal and @andrew-saydjari welcome to the review thread for your paper. All future communication regarding this submission will take place here. Thank you for your contribution and for agreeing to participate in the review process!

Review instructions are provided at the top of this page. We strongly encourage reviewers to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please reference openjournals/joss-reviews#REVIEW_NUMBER to create a link to this thread, allowing me to monitor progress. Feel free to post comments, questions, or suggestions in this thread as they arise during your review. In our experience, sharing feedback incrementally is more effective than waiting until you've examined the entire package.

Our target timeframe for completing reviews is 3-4 weeks. If you need additional time, please let me know. We can also utilize the editorial boot to set up automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to contact me (@adonath) directly.

andrew-saydjari commented 1 week ago

Review checklist for @andrew-saydjari

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/cadojo/EphemerisSources.jl?
[ ] 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 (@cadojo) 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

[ ] 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