[PRE REVIEW]: PyProBE: Python Processing for Battery Experiments

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@tomjholland<!--end-author-handle-- (Thomas Holland) Repository: https://github.com/ImperialCollegeLondon/PyProBE Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: 1.0.2 Editor: !--editor-->@phibeck<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @TomTranter, @ritesh001, @jakobhaervig Managing EiC: Kyle Niemeyer

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0657708fc7e6ac46fd1f4160aabe6da8"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0657708fc7e6ac46fd1f4160aabe6da8/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0657708fc7e6ac46fd1f4160aabe6da8/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0657708fc7e6ac46fd1f4160aabe6da8)

Author instructions

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

@tomjholland 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

- 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2016.12.011 is OK
- 10.1016/j.est.2021.103669 is OK
- 10.1016/j.est.2023.107108 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.309 is OK
- 10.1016/j.softx.2020.100506 is OK
- 10.1016/j.softx.2023.101584 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.06236 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.13208786 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 is OK
- 10.1016/j.est.2022.105558 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Battery-Intelligence-Lab/galv
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Samuel-Buteau/universal-battery-database
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Collaborative data science

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=1.47 s (78.4 files/s, 546084.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSV                              1              0              0         789590
Python                          47           1118           1346           4742
reStructuredText                42            425            419            600
Jupyter Notebook                 8              0           1466            481
TeX                              2             16              0            236
YAML                             9             12             14            211
Markdown                         3             74              0            185
TOML                             1              9              3             73
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              5              8             11
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           115           1667           3257         796155
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   332  Tom Holland
   160  Holland, Thomas J
   141  tomjholland
    35  Holland
    31  Holland Tom
     7  dependabot[bot]
     1  github-actions[bot]

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1137

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" 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:

DiffCapAnalyzer: A Python Package for Quantitative Analysis of Total Differential Capacity Data Submitting author: @nicolet5 Handling editor: @jgostick (Active) Reviewers: @yangbai90, @WardLT Similarity score: 0.6888

fuelcell: A Python package and graphical user interface for electrochemical data analysis Submitting author: @samaygarg Handling editor: @jgostick (Active) Reviewers: @jlopata21, @shimpalee Similarity score: 0.6858

ProgPy: Python Packages for Prognostics and Health Management of Engineering Systems Submitting author: @teubert Handling editor: @kellyrowland (Active) Reviewers: @tbsexton, @nkrusch Similarity score: 0.6807

pyomeca: An Open-Source Framework for Biomechanical Analysis Submitting author: @romainmartinez Handling editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman (Active) Reviewers: @BKillen05, @mitkof6 Similarity score: 0.6746

ThermoParser: Streamlined Analysis of Thermoelectric Properties Submitting author: @kbspooner Handling editor: @mbarzegary (Active) Reviewers: @enricgrau, @fnattino, @espottesmith Similarity score: 0.6618

⚠️ 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]

Hello @tomjholland, we will use this pre-review issue to find an editor and reviewers, and sort out any issues prior to the review starting.

While your submission looks in scope for JOSS and meets most of our requirements, I can't find instructions for running a test suite—at minimum, software needs to be tested (e.g., unit and functional) and have some instructions for manually running tests. Ideally, this would be automated (e.g., with pytest), and at best hooked into continuous integration (e.g., GitHub Actions).

[tomjholland]

Hello @tomjholland, we will use this pre-review issue to find an editor and reviewers, and sort out any issues prior to the review starting.

While your submission looks in scope for JOSS and meets most of our requirements, I can't find instructions for running a test suite—at minimum, software needs to be tested (e.g., unit and functional) and have some instructions for manually running tests. Ideally, this would be automated (e.g., with pytest), and at best hooked into continuous integration (e.g., GitHub Actions).

Hello @kyleniemeyer, my project has a test suite that you should be able to find in tests/, in addition:

• the test suite is fully automated with pytest
• instructions to run pytest are included in step 5 of the contributing guidelines (if more detail is required do let me know)
• the tests are run with GitHub Actions on every pull request as specified in .github/workflows/ci.yml

I hope this helps, and let me know if there is anything else you need me to do.

[phibeck]

Hi @kyleniemeyer once the above discussion is resolved, I could edit this one.

[kyleniemeyer]

@tomjholland ah, that's great - I missed those at quick glance. It might help to add badges to the README that indicate the CI status.

@phibeck this looks good to go, thanks!

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot assign @phibeck as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @phibeck is now the editor

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot assign @phibeck

[editorialbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot assign @phibeck as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @phibeck is now the editor

[kyleniemeyer]

(Sorry for the repeat @phibeck, the original command didn't "take" for some reason)

[phibeck]

Hi @tomjholland , 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 @), thanks.

[tomjholland]

Hi @phibeck, sorry for the slow response. I can suggest Brady Planden and Tom Tranter as potential reviewers.

[phibeck]

:wave: @tomtranter, @EricaEgg & @yaomz16, 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

[TomTranter]

Hi @phibeck I would be happy to

[phibeck]

@editorialbot add @TomTranter as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@TomTranter added to the reviewers list!

[phibeck]

:wave: @DEARLIBS, @mefuller & @ritesh001, 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

[ritesh001]

Hi @phibeck I would be happy to help you with the review.

[phibeck]

@editorialbot add @ritesh001 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@ritesh001 added to the reviewers list!

[yaomz16]

👋 @TomTranter, @EricaEgg & @yaomz16, 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

Hi Sophie, sorry for the slow reply but I won't be able to help review the paper

[phibeck]

Hi @yaomz16 okay, thanks for letting me know!

[phibeck]

:wave: @jakobhaervig, @hewei8622 & @mdoucet, 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

[jakobhaervig]

Hi @phibeck. I can help out with the review.

[phibeck]

@editorialbot add @jakobhaervig as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@jakobhaervig added to the reviewers list!

[phibeck]

Excellent, thank you all for agreeing to review @TomTranter, @ritesh001 and @jakobhaervig. I will close the Pre-review issue and start the Review process in another issue

[phibeck]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/7474.