[REVIEW]: cogsworth: A Gala of COSMIC proportions combining binary stellar evolution and galactic dynamics

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@TomWagg<!--end-author-handle-- (Thomas Wagg) Repository: https://github.com/TomWagg/cogsworth Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper Version: v2.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@ivastar<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @nicolagaspari, @smandhai Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8d9ca0f0fe1f430257543c267f9557be"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8d9ca0f0fe1f430257543c267f9557be/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8d9ca0f0fe1f430257543c267f9557be/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8d9ca0f0fe1f430257543c267f9557be)

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

@nicolagaspari & @smandhai, 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 @ivastar 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 @smandhai

📝 Checklist for @nicolagaspari

[editorialbot]

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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.17 s (641.2 files/s, 323426.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TeX                             10           1540           1341          13979
Python                          42           1328           2167           4424
Jupyter Notebook                23              0          27667           1628
CSS                              2             45             40            314
reStructuredText                19            191            231            198
Markdown                         7             30              0            119
YAML                             4             14             10            103
JavaScript                       1              7              6             47
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              5              7             12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           110           3168          31470          20850
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   820  Tom Wagg

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10066 is OK
- 10.1086/171341 is OK
- 10.1126/science.1223344 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/7 is OK
- 10.1086/164050 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20593.x is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040019 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956 is OK
- 10.1088/2514-3433/abb6f0 is OK
- 10.1007/s41115-023-00017-x is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102711-094901 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18650.x is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201833297 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/202449996 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx027 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv2733 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21549.x is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv1753 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz2629 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa2334 is OK
- 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aab092 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2311.01865 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201629685 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz2335 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: On the origin of the O- and B-type stars with high...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 929

✅ 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:

[augustfly]

The AAS ApJS article DOI will be "10.3847/1538-4365/ad8b1f"

[smandhai]

Review checklist for @smandhai

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://github.com/TomWagg/cogsworth?
• [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 (@TomWagg) 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
• [x] 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

• [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).
• [x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• [x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
• [x] 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?

[nicolagaspari]

Review checklist for @nicolagaspari

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://github.com/TomWagg/cogsworth?
• [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 (@TomWagg) 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
• [x] 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

• [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?
• [ ] 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)?
• [ ] 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?