[PRE REVIEW]: SynxFlow: A GPU-accelerated Python package for multi-hazard simulations

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@xiaxilin<!--end-author-handle-- (Xilin Xia) Repository: https://github.com/SynxFlow/SynxFlow Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss Version: v1.0 Editor: !--editor-->@AnjaliSandip<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: !--reviewers-list-->@christopheredsall<!--end-reviewers-list-- Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/04b306f03970eb31c48199863ad669aa"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/04b306f03970eb31c48199863ad669aa/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/04b306f03970eb31c48199863ad669aa/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/04b306f03970eb31c48199863ad669aa)

Author instructions

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

@xiaxilin 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=0.10 s (1853.3 files/s, 261057.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CUDA                            18            912            866           5330
C/C++ Header                    72           1038           1486           3406
Python                          17            600           1460           3380
C++                             35            525            799           2892
Jupyter Notebook                 3              0           1503            176
CMake                            6             61             23            145
Markdown                         5             74              0            127
TeX                              1              0              0             69
YAML                             2              6             16             29
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
reStructuredText                15             14             39             26
CSV                              1              0              0             10
make                             1              4              7              9
HTML                             1              1              0              5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           178           3243           6200          15630
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    87  Xilin Xia
    32  Xiaodong Ming
    19  xilin xia
     2  SynxFlow
     1  pypims

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1002/2016WR020055 is OK
- 10.1016/j.enggeo.2023.107310 is OK
- 10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.01.011 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: hipims-cuda, commit 4aa7516
- No DOI given, and none found for title: hipims-io, commit bafc98d
- No DOI given, and none found for title: pypims, commit 27376f9

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 797

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU General Public License v3.0 (Check here for OSI approval)

[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:

BoxKit: A Python library to manage analysis of block-structured simulation datasets Submitting author: @akashdhruv Handling editor: @kellyrowland (Active) Reviewers: @rvg296, @Abinashbunty Similarity score: 0.7233

Simulation Decomposition in Python Submitting author: @tupui Handling editor: @crvernon (Active) Reviewers: @JoshuaOsborneDATA, @matt-graham Similarity score: 0.7204

Underworld2: Python Geodynamics Modelling for Desktop, HPC and Cloud Submitting author: @jmansour Handling editor: @leouieda (Retired) Reviewers: @gassmoeller, @gabersyd Similarity score: 0.7179

pyDeltaRCM: a flexible numerical delta model Submitting author: @amoodie Handling editor: @kbarnhart (Retired) Reviewers: @zsylvester, @jhnienhuis, @salterg Similarity score: 0.7140

Pyrokinetics - A Python library to standardise gyrokinetic analysis Submitting author: @bpatel2107 Handling editor: @kellyrowland (Active) Reviewers: @the-rccg, @rogeriojorge Similarity score: 0.7088

⚠️ 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.

[kthyng]

Hi @xiaxilin and thanks for your submission! I am looking for some specific items to make sure your submission fits our requirements at a high level (not at the more detailed review level) before moving on to finding an editor or putting this on our waitlist if no relevant editors are available. I'll comment over time as I have a chance to go through them:

• [x] OSI-approved license
• [x] Installation instructions
• [x] Documentation exists at all
• [x] Tests of some sort
• [x] Check paper (make sure compiles, read through, check for length 250-1000 words)
• [x] Substantial scholarly effort
• [x] Clear research application

In the meantime, please take a look at the comments above ⬆️ from the editorialbot to address any DOI, license, or paper issues if you're able (there may not be any), or suggest reviewers. For reviewers, please suggest 5 reviewers from the database listed above or your own (non-conflicted) extended network. Their github handles are most useful to receive but please don't use "@" to reference them since it will prematurely ping them.

[kthyng]

@xiaxilin

• I see the tutorials/examples in your docs can be run by the users, and these can act as sort of tests for users to verify code usage. Unit tests to test the code would be good to have as well; this may also come up in review.
• Please check that your inline vs. parenthetical references are correct (for example line 51). You can compare with the example paper here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/example_paper.html.
• Also include space before your references for example lines 47 and 48.
• We have a backlog of submissions so I will add this to our waitlist. Thanks for your patience.

[kthyng]

@AnjaliSandip Can you edit this submission?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @AnjaliSandip as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[AnjaliSandip]

@kthyng , I am happy to edit this submission.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot assign @AnjaliSandip as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @AnjaliSandip is now the editor

[xiaxilin]

@kthyng

Thank you for promptly looking into this submission. I have updated the paper to address your comments about the references.

[AnjaliSandip]

@xiaxilin , if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers, 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.

[xiaxilin]

@AnjaliSandip I have had a quick look through the list, and thought the following people may be interested

christopheredsall cheginit shulele

[AnjaliSandip]

👋 @christopheredsall, @cheginit, & @shulele, would you 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.

[cheginit]

@AnjaliSandip Unfortunately, I won't be able to review this submission. I am swamped with my editing and review activities through the end of the year.

[christopheredsall]

@christopheredsall, would you review this submission for JOSS?

@AnjaliSandip Sure, I can give that a go.

[AnjaliSandip]

@editorialbot add @christopheredsall as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@christopheredsall added to the reviewers list!

[AnjaliSandip]

@xiaxilin, we need at least one more reviewer to start the review process. Do you have any other suggestions for potential reviewers? If so, please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people who have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.