[REVIEW]: CN-AeroModels: A C++ implementation of aerodynamic models for wind propulsion systems of cargo ships

editorialbot commented 2 weeks ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@ababaritECN@philipcardiff<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @mancellin, @jarlekramer Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e45a4a5a5760008359c82d2342bf29de"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e45a4a5a5760008359c82d2342bf29de/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e45a4a5a5760008359c82d2342bf29de/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e45a4a5a5760008359c82d2342bf29de)

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

@mancellin & @jarlekramer, 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 @philipcardiff 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 @mancellin

📝 Checklist for @jarlekramer

editorialbot commented 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.07 s (1205.7 files/s, 352016.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C++                             19            473           3345           7908
YAML                            18            109              0           4474
C/C++ Header                    15            335            855           2701
SVG                              1              1              1           1492
reStructuredText                12            586           1288            585
CMake                            3             42             65            292
TeX                              2             26              0            217
Markdown                         5             96              0            204
Python                           6             48             79            173
Dockerfile                       2             28             21            128
JSON                             1              5              0             28
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
CSS                              1              3              4             12
make                             1              4              7              9
Bourne Shell                     1              4              2              7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            88           1768           5668          18256
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   113  Aurélien Babarit
    76  Moran Charlou

editorialbot commented 2 weeks ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2014.06.044 is OK
- 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.111688 is OK
- 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.116596 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2008-7063 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.2514/2.2649 may be a valid DOI for title: Modern Adaptation of Prandtl’s Classic Lifting-Lin...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Modelling of aerodynamic interaction effects for w...
- 10.1109/smc.2017.8122921 may be a valid DOI for title: OpenGA, a C++ Genetic Algorithm Library
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Fidgit: An ungodly union of GitHub and Figshare
- No DOI given, and none found for title: xdyn
- No DOI given, and none found for title: xflr5
- No DOI given, and none found for title: MachUpX
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Rapid Aerodynamic Method for Interacting Sails

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 2 weeks ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 590

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 2 weeks ago

License info:

✅ License found: Eclipse Public License 2.0 (Valid open source OSI approved license)

editorialbot commented 2 weeks ago

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

philipcardiff commented 2 weeks ago

Hi @ababaritECN, where possible, please fix the MISSING DOIs above.

mancellin commented 2 weeks ago

Review checklist for @mancellin

Conflict of interest

[ ] 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

[ ] 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://gitlab.com/lheea/CN-AeroModels?
[ ] 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 (@ababaritECN) 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?

jarlekramer commented 2 weeks ago

Review checklist for @jarlekramer

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://gitlab.com/lheea/CN-AeroModels?
[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 (@ababaritECN) 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
[ ] 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

[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).
[ ] 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

[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?

ababaritECN commented 2 weeks ago

Hi @ababaritECN, where possible, please fix the MISSING DOIs above.

[X] Done

philipcardiff commented 2 weeks ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 2 weeks ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.2514/2.2649 is OK
- 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2014.06.044 is OK
- 10.1109/SMC.2017.8122921 is OK
- 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.111688 is OK
- 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.116596 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2008-7063 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Modelling of aerodynamic interaction effects for w...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: xdyn
- No DOI given, and none found for title: xflr5
- No DOI given, and none found for title: MachUpX
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Rapid Aerodynamic Method for Interacting Sails

INVALID DOIs

- None

jarlekramer commented 1 week ago

Heads-up: I raised an issue in the repository relating to install instructions. Potentially a minor bug or some missing instructions in the documentation.

mcharlou commented 1 week ago

@jarlekramer Thanks for the Issue! I've investigated the problem, which seems to be a CMake bug (as far as I can tell).

jarlekramer commented 1 week ago

Yes all is good on this issue, details on GitLab

jarlekramer commented 5 days ago

Heads up: I raised a new issue, this time related to potentially improved examples. Se GitLab for details

openjournals / joss-reviews