[PRE REVIEW]: ARCHES PiCar-X: Software for Digital Twin Research

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@AlexanderBarbie<!--end-author-handle-- (Alexander Barbie) Repository: https://github.com/cau-se/ARCHES-PiCar-X Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.1.0 Editor: !--editor-->@danielskatz<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @mrsonandrade, @AlexanderFabisch Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5d93cc837d4f2cc97aa87b4425d49fc1"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5d93cc837d4f2cc97aa87b4425d49fc1/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5d93cc837d4f2cc97aa87b4425d49fc1/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5d93cc837d4f2cc97aa87b4425d49fc1)

Author instructions

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

@AlexanderBarbie 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=0.06 s (2108.8 files/s, 140200.0 lines/s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                      files          blank        comment           code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                           31            696           1418           1906
YAML                             18            159              7           1743
Markdown                         27            338              0            974
XML                              26             93             11            597
CMake                             9             58              6            175
Dockerfile                        7             26              0             82
TeX                               1              8              0             82
CSS                               1              8              0             46
Gencat NLS                        4              3              0             22
HTML                              1              3              0             22
JavaScript                        1              4              0             16
Bourne Again Shell                2              0              0              7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            128           1396           1442           5672
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    41  Alexander Barbie
     1  AlexanderBarbie
     1  Wilhelm Hasselbring
     1  abarbie

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1109/access.2024.3406510 is OK
- 10.3390/sym16020221 is OK
- 10.1109/mic.2021.3065245 is OK
- 10.3289/sw_arches_core_1.0.0 is OK
- 10.1109/MS.2018.2801541 is OK
- 10.1080/00423114.2020.1730917 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2408.13866 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: ACM SIGSOFT Empirical Standards on GitHub
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ARCHES PiCar-X

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1184

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: Apache License 2.0 (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:

The o80 C++ templated toolbox: Designing customized Python APIs for synchronizing realtime processes Submitting author: @vincentberenz Handling editor: @gkthiruvathukal (Active) Reviewers: @traversaro, @vissarion Similarity score: 0.6191

containerit: Generating Dockerfiles for reproducible research with R Submitting author: @nuest Handling editor: @terrytangyuan (Retired) Reviewers: @vsoch, @cole-brokamp Similarity score: 0.6165

Mantik: A Workflow Platform for the Development of Artificial Intelligence on High-Performance Computing Infrastructures Submitting author: @rico-berner Handling editor: @arfon (Active) Reviewers: @zhaozhang, @gflofst Similarity score: 0.6048

High-performance neural population dynamics modeling enabled by scalable computational infrastructure Submitting author: @a9p Handling editor: @emdupre (Active) Reviewers: @richford, @tachukao Similarity score: 0.6031

RidePy: A fast and modular framework for simulating ridepooling systems Submitting author: @fxjung Handling editor: @diehlpk (Active) Reviewers: @xoolive, @abhishektiwari, @ixjlyons Similarity score: 0.6018

⚠️ 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.

[danielskatz]

👋 @AlexanderBarbie - Thanks for your submission. It looks fine, and I'll assign myself as the editor.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @danielskatz is now the editor

[danielskatz]

👋 @AlexanderBarbie - Please suggest ~5 potential reviewers. You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission. Or people who aren't in the JOSS system would also be ok. If you know their GitHub usernames, then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @).

[AlexanderBarbie]

Thank you, great list! Here are 5 potential reviewers with different backgrounds:

@nuest -- This author is from the list above Martin Huber Christopher Thierauf Alexander Fabisch Emerson Martins de Andrade

[danielskatz]

👋 @nuest - would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS?

[danielskatz]

👋 @cst0, @AlexanderFabisch, @mrsonandrade - would one or more of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS?

[mrsonandrade]

Hi @danielskatz! I am available to review this submission for JOSS.

[AlexanderFabisch]

@danielskatz Yes, I would like to review this submission. :)

[danielskatz]

Thanks to @mrsonandrade and @AlexanderFabisch! - I'll add you both shortly. I'll likely wait a little bit to see if we get a third reviewer before I actually start the review.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @mrsonandrade as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@mrsonandrade added to the reviewers list!

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @AlexanderFabisch as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@AlexanderFabisch added to the reviewers list!

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot start review

let's go ahead

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/7179.