[REVIEW]: ysoisochrone: A Python package to estimate masses and ages for YSOs

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @DingshanDeng (Dingshan Deng) Repository: https://github.com/DingshanDeng/ysoisochrone Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@warrickball<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @heloises, @vsquicciarini Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d7ebe3bc625fbfc7372bee2bab4e53ce"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d7ebe3bc625fbfc7372bee2bab4e53ce/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d7ebe3bc625fbfc7372bee2bab4e53ce/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d7ebe3bc625fbfc7372bee2bab4e53ce)

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

@heloises & @vsquicciarini, 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 @warrickball 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

@heloises, please create your checklist typing: @editorialbot generate my checklist

@vsquicciarini, please create your checklist typing: @editorialbot generate my checklist

[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=0.11 s (592.5 files/s, 172060.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML                            13            420             39           4556
SVG                              3              0              0           2689
Python                           7            774           1451           1372
CSS                              7            223             57           1016
JavaScript                      11            143            234            877
Jupyter Notebook                 4              0           3061            379
CSV                              3              0              0            196
TeX                              1             18              0            186
Markdown                         5             72              0            158
reStructuredText                 6            159            348             47
YAML                             2              6             19             31
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            64           1827           5217          11542
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    74  Dingshan Deng

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch010 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0003477 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09930 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19945.x is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361:20042185 is OK
- 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/125 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/129 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201527613 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/acf4f0 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- None

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 682

✅ 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:

[warrickball]

Hi @HeloiseS & @vsquicciarini, and thanks again for agreeing to review (and so quickly!). This is the review thread for the paper. All our correspondence is now intended to happen here but you're welcome to email me with any questions, too.

Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above, and generate your checklists by commenting @editorialbot generate my checklist on this issue. As you go over the submission, please check off any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. We aim to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgement on the submission. We also encourage reviewers to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#7493 so that the issue/PR is linked to this thread. Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. JOSS editors have found it better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks so start whenever you can. JOSS reviews are iterative—rather than monolithic—and the authors can start responding while you continue to review other parts of the submission.

If it suits your workflow, you're welcome to assign yourself to this issue in the GitHub UI.