[PRE REVIEW]: Bodge: Python package for efficient tight-binding modeling of superconducting nanostructures

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@jabirali<!--end-author-handle-- (Jabir Ali Ouassou) Repository: https://github.com/jabirali/bodge/ Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper Version: v1.1.0 Editor: !--editor-->@phibeck<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @sabinomaggi, @yw-fang, @mdavezac Managing EiC: Kyle Niemeyer

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/18b48f694511e8c02a6b56375855fd0c"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/18b48f694511e8c02a6b56375855fd0c/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/18b48f694511e8c02a6b56375855fd0c/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/18b48f694511e8c02a6b56375855fd0c)

Author instructions

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

@jabirali 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]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.076003 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.109.174506 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2407.07144 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-31314-6 is OK
- 10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/063065 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4010216 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1201/9780429497032 may be a valid DOI for title: Superconductivity of metals and alloys

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.04 s (1001.8 files/s, 217385.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSS                              4             39             19           2238
JavaScript                      11            235            226           2112
HTML                             2             34              4            927
Python                           8            294            361            765
Markdown                         3             50              0            142
TeX                              1              8              0             86
YAML                             3              9              4             64
CSV                              1              0              0             45
JSON                             1              0              0             44
make                             1             14              5             43
TOML                             1              6              0             38
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            36            689            619           6504
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   512  Jabir Ali Ouassou
     5  Jabir Ouassou

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1268

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

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

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

lattice-symmetries: A package for working with quantum many-body bases Submitting author: @twesterhout Handling editor: @jedbrown (Active) Reviewers: @jeffhammond, @joselado Similarity score: 0.7263

QuantNBody: a Python package for quantum chemistry and physics to build and manipulate many-body operators and wave functions. Submitting author: @SYalouz Handling editor: @jarvist (Retired) Reviewers: @wcwitt, @erikkjellgren Similarity score: 0.7151

matador: a Python library for analysing, curating and performing high-throughput density-functional theory calculations Submitting author: @ml-evs Handling editor: @jgostick (Active) Reviewers: @mkhorton, @srmnitc Similarity score: 0.7151

The Walrus: a library for the calculation of hafnians, Hermite polynomials and Gaussian boson sampling Submitting author: @nquesada Handling editor: @katyhuff (Retired) Reviewers: @amitkumarj441, @poulson Similarity score: 0.7057

SiSyPHE: A Python package for the Simulation of Systems of interacting mean-field Particles with High Efficiency Submitting author: @antoinediez Handling editor: @pdebuyl (Active) Reviewers: @lorenzo-rovigatti, @junghans Similarity score: 0.7052

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[kyleniemeyer]

Hi @jabirali, thanks for your submission. Due to the relatively small nature of your package, the JOSS editorial board is going to take a look to make sure it meets our requirements for substantial scholarly effort before proceeding to review. We should get back to you within a week or two at most.

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot query scope

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[kyleniemeyer]

@jabirali we will proceed a review of your submission, @phibeck has agreed to edit

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot invite @phibeck as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[phibeck]

@editorialbot assign @phibeck as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @phibeck is now the editor

[phibeck]

Hi @jabirali, thanks for your submission. I'll be looking for reviewers next. If you have a moment, it would be helpful if you could identify a few potential reviewers from this list https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/reviewers (without tagging them with an @).

[jabirali]

Dear @phibeck,

Thanks a lot for agreeing to edit my submission! I have now had a look through the list of reviewers, and I believe the following referees (listed by their GitHub handle) might be relevant to my submission:

• alejandrojuria
• yw-fang
• kaelynj
• santoshkumarradha
• nmoran
• sabinomaggi

I didn't find any referees in the system with a background in the particular framework I've implemented, but the suggestions above all appear to have some background in condensed matter physics and experience with either tight-binding models or superconductivity. I therefore believe they should be qualified to judge my submission.

Kind Regards, Ali.

[phibeck]

:wave: @alejandrojuria, @sabinomaggi & @yw-fang, would any of you be willing to review this submission for 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

[sabinomaggi]

Hi @phibeck, I guess I could do that, but I am on vacation now until the end of the month and will be attending a couple of conferences in the first half of September. Until then I could read the paper, but I will not be able to check things like installation or functionality of the package.

[phibeck]

Hi @sabinomaggi okay thanks for letting me know and for agreeing to review. I think this should be fine, I will assign you as reviewer keeping your timeline in mind.

[phibeck]

@editorialbot add @sabinomaggi as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@sabinomaggi added to the reviewers list!

[phibeck]

:wave: @kaelynj, @santoshkumarradha & @nmoran, would any of you be willing to review this submission for 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

[yw-fang]

Hi, Sophie

I'll be able to review it.

Bests Yuewen

---

From: Sophie Beck @.> Sent: Friday, August 9, 2024 7:51 PM To: openjournals/joss-reviews @.> Cc: Yue-Wen Fang @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [openjournals/joss-reviews] [PRE REVIEW]: Bodge: Python package for efficient tight-binding modeling of superconducting nanostructures (Issue #6991)

👋 @alejandrojuriahttps://github.com/alejandrojuria, @sabinomaggihttps://github.com/sabinomaggi & @yw-fanghttps://github.com/yw-fang, would any of you be willing to review this submission for 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

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6991#issuecomment-2278446606, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AD34YV6UUPHPCI3AOAKSFZDZQT6STAVCNFSM6AAAAABK4ZKUWSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDENZYGQ2DMNRQGY. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[phibeck]

Hi @yw-fang, thank you very much for agreeing to review!

[phibeck]

@editorialbot add @yw-fang as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@yw-fang added to the reviewers list!

[phibeck]

:wave: @WangYiXu92, @flokno & @mdavezac, would any of you be willing to review this submission for 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

[kaelynj]

Hi Sophie,

If reviewers are still needed for this, I'm happy to spend some time doing so.

Cheers, Kaelyn

[mdavezac]

I'm happy to review this

[flokno]

If more reviewers are needed, I can contribute as well!

[phibeck]

Hi @kaelynj, @mdavezac and @flokno thank you all for your responses. At this point we only need one more reviewer, so I'll take @mdavezac's offer, but might get back to you at a later point in case we need one more.

[phibeck]

@editorialbot add @mdavezac as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@mdavezac added to the reviewers list!

[phibeck]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/7134.