ZodiPy

[MetinSa]

Submitting Author: Metin San (@metinsa) All current maintainers: (@metinsa, @dncnwtts, @hermda02) Package Name: ZodiPy One-Line Description of Package: Zodiacal emission simulations in timestreams or HEALPix for solar system observers. Repository Link: https://github.com/Cosmoglobe/zodipy Version submitted: v.0.8.5 Editor: @dhomeier Reviewer 1: @pllim
Reviewer 2: @lpsinger
Archive: JOSS DOI: Version accepted: v.0.9.2 Date accepted (month/day/year): 04/21/2024

---

Code of Conduct & Commitment to Maintain Package

• [x] I agree to abide by pyOpenSci's Code of Conduct during the review process and in maintaining my package after should it be accepted.
• [x] I have read and will commit to package maintenance after the review as per the pyOpenSci Policies Guidelines.

Description

ZodiPy is a new Python tool for modelling the zodiacal emission seen by an arbitrary Solar System observer, which can be used for removal of both thermal emission and scattered sunlight from interplanetary dust in astrophysical data. One of our main goals with ZodiPy is to make zodiacal emission simulations more accessible by providing the community with a simple Python interface to existing models. We recently published a paper on ZodiPy (which has also been accepted to A&A) where we describe in more detail modelling of zodiacal emission and the approach taken by ZodiPy.

ZodiPy uses Astropy both in the public API and internally. When using one of the methods provided to simulate the zodiacal emission, the user needs to use Quantity and Time types in input arguments such as frequency/wavelength, angles on the sky, and the time of observation. Internally, the Time object is used to compute the heliocentric ecliptic position of the Earth and the observer with the SkyCoord and other functionality in astropy.coordinates.

Scope

• Please indicate which category or categories. Check out our package scope page to learn more about our scope. (If you are unsure of which category you fit, we suggest you make a pre-submission inquiry):

  • [ ] Data retrieval
  • [ ] Data extraction
  • [ ] Data processing/munging
  • [ ] Data deposition
  • [ ] Data validation and testing
  • [ ] Data visualization[^1]
  • [ ] Workflow automation
  • [ ] Citation management and bibliometrics
  • [x] Scientific software wrappers
  • [ ] Database interoperability

ZodiPy was already proposed and reviewed as an Astropy Affiliated package before the recent partnership between Astropy and pyOpenSci in APE22, so I am resubmitting the proposal as is here.

Domain Specific

• [ ] Geospatial
• [ ] Education

Community Partnerships

If your package is associated with an existing community please check below:

• [x] Astropy: Link coming soon to standards
• [ ] Pangeo: My package adheres to the Pangeo standards listed in the pyOpenSci peer review guidebook

[^1]: Please fill out a pre-submission inquiry before submitting a data visualization package.

• For all submissions, explain how the and why the package falls under the categories you indicated above. In your explanation, please address the following points (briefly, 1-2 sentences for each):

  • Who is the target audience and what are scientific applications of this package?

    • The target audience is astronomers and cosmologists who work with sky observations all the way from the optical to CMB-frequencies. The scientific application of the this package is to provide the astronomer with and open source tool to create simulated timestreams, snapshots, or maps of the zodiacal light as seen from earth or any other arbitrary solar system observer. This allows existing experiments with data contaminated by zodiacal light to model and remove the light from their data, and future experiments can, and some already has (Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope) use ZodiPy to make forecasts and simulations.

  • Are there other Python packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ?

    • There exists a few zodiacal light tools but these are all experiment specific and can only be used to model the zodiacal light that was observed in their data. ZodiPy is as far as i know the only Python package that allows for arbitrary solar system observers to make zodiacal light simulations. ZodiPy is also extendible and can easily be updated with new improvements to zodiacal light models and even used to fit new models.

  • If you made a pre-submission enquiry, please paste the link to the corresponding issue, forum post, or other discussion, or @tag the editor you contacted:

Technical checks

For details about the pyOpenSci packaging requirements, see our packaging guide. Confirm each of the following by checking the box. This package:

• [x] does not violate the Terms of Service of any service it interacts with.
• [x] uses an OSI approved license.
• [x] contains a README with instructions for installing the development version.
• [x] includes documentation with examples for all functions.
• [x] contains a tutorial with examples of its essential functions and uses.
• [x] has a test suite.
• [x] has continuous integration setup, such as GitHub Actions CircleCI, and/or others.

Publication Options

• [x] Do you wish to automatically submit to the Journal of Open Source Software? If so:

JOSS Checks

- [x] The package has an **obvious research application** according to JOSS's definition in their [submission requirements][JossSubmissionRequirements]. Be aware that completing the pyOpenSci review process **does not** guarantee acceptance to JOSS. Be sure to read their submission requirements (linked above) if you are interested in submitting to JOSS. - [x] The package is not a "minor utility" as defined by JOSS's [submission requirements][JossSubmissionRequirements]: "Minor ‘utility’ packages, including ‘thin’ API clients, are not acceptable." pyOpenSci welcomes these packages under "Data Retrieval", but JOSS has slightly different criteria. - [x] The package contains a `paper.md` matching [JOSS's requirements][JossPaperRequirements] with a high-level description in the package root or in `inst/`. - [x] The package is deposited in a long-term repository with the DOI: *Note: JOSS accepts our review as theirs. You will NOT need to go through another full review. JOSS will only review your paper.md file. Be sure to link to this pyOpenSci issue when a JOSS issue is opened for your package. Also be sure to tell the JOSS editor that this is a pyOpenSci reviewed package once you reach this step.*

Are you OK with Reviewers Submitting Issues and/or pull requests to your Repo Directly?

This option will allow reviewers to open smaller issues that can then be linked to PR's rather than submitting a more dense text based review. It will also allow you to demonstrate addressing the issue via PR links.

• [x] Yes I am OK with reviewers submitting requested changes as issues to my repo. Reviewers will then link to the issues in their submitted review.

Confirm each of the following by checking the box.

• [x] I have read the author guide.
• [x] I expect to maintain this package for at least 2 years and can help find a replacement for the maintainer (team) if needed.

Please fill out our survey

• [ ] Last but not least please fill out our pre-review survey. This helps us track submission and improve our peer review process. We will also ask our reviewers and editors to fill this out.

P.S. Have feedback/comments about our review process? Leave a comment here

Editor and Review Templates

The editor template can be found here.

The review template can be found here.

[isabelizimm]

Editor in Chief checks

Hi there! Thank you for submitting your package for pyOpenSci review. Below are the basic checks that your package needs to pass to begin our review. If some of these are missing, we will ask you to work on them before the review process begins.

Please check our Python packaging guide for more information on the elements below.

• [x] Installation The package can be installed from a community repository such as PyPI (preferred), and/or a community channel on conda (e.g. conda-forge, bioconda).
  • [X] The package imports properly into a standard Python environment import package.
• [X] Fit The package meets criteria for fit and overlap.
• [X] Documentation The package has sufficient online documentation to allow us to evaluate package function and scope without installing the package. This includes:
  • [X] User-facing documentation that overviews how to install and start using the package.
  • [X] Short tutorials that help a user understand how to use the package and what it can do for them.
  • [X] API documentation (documentation for your code's functions, classes, methods and attributes): this includes clearly written docstrings with variables defined using a standard docstring format.
• [x] Core GitHub repository Files
  • [X] README The package has a README.md file with clear explanation of what the package does, instructions on how to install it, and a link to development instructions.
  • [x] Contributing File The package has a CONTRIBUTING.md file that details how to install and contribute to the package.
  • [x] Code of Conduct The package has a CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md file.
  • [X] License The package has an OSI approved license. NOTE: We prefer that you have development instructions in your documentation too.
• [X] Issue Submission Documentation All of the information is filled out in the YAML header of the issue (located at the top of the issue template).
• [X] Automated tests Package has a testing suite and is tested via a Continuous Integration service.
• [X] Repository The repository link resolves correctly.
• [X] Package overlap The package doesn't entirely overlap with the functionality of other packages that have already been submitted to pyOpenSci.
• [ ] Archive (JOSS only, may be post-review): The repository DOI resolves correctly.
• [X] Version (JOSS only, may be post-review): Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.0)?

---

• [x] Initial onboarding survey was filled out We appreciate each maintainer of the package filling out this survey individually. :raised_hands: Thank you authors in advance for setting aside five to ten minutes to do this. It truly helps our organization. :raised_hands:

---

Editor comments

Hello there and welcome to the pyOpenSci universe (apologies for the bad pun 😂🌟)! We're happy you're here. I've done a quick overview of the zodipy package, and you are in great shape! There are a few things we will need before we start with your review:

1. Please add a CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md to the root of your repository. For more information, pyOpenSci's packaging guide has some examples and information on CoC files.
2. Please add a CONTRIBUTING.md to the root of your repository. For more information, pyOpenSci's packaging guide has some templates and information on CONTRIBUTING files.
3. I'll also nudge each maintainer (so, @MetinSa @dncnwtts) to fill out our onboarding survey.

Let us know when you've made these updates. I'll also use this message to introduce your editor-- @dhomeier will be helping you all through the review process 🎉 Thanks for taking on this role Derek!

[MetinSa]

Hi! :wave:

I have now added a CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md and a CONTRIBUTING.md to the repository aswell as having filled out the survey. I also added @hermda02 as a maintainer of the project.

[pllim]

Package Review

Please check off boxes as applicable, and elaborate in comments below. Your review is not limited to these topics, as described in the reviewer guide

• [x] As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (If you are unsure whether you are in conflict, please speak to your editor before starting your review).

Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

• [x] A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience in README.
• [x] Installation instructions: for the development version of the package and any non-standard dependencies in README. (Reviewer note: https://github.com/Cosmoglobe/zodipy/issues/4 and https://github.com/Cosmoglobe/zodipy/issues/10)
• [x] Vignette(s) demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally.
• [x] Function Documentation: for all user-facing functions.
• [x] Examples for all user-facing functions.
• [x] Community guidelines including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING.
• [x] Metadata including author(s), author e-mail(s), a url, and any other relevant metadata e.g., in a pyproject.toml file or elsewhere.

Readme file requirements The package meets the readme requirements below:

• [x] Package has a README.md file in the root directory.

The README should include, from top to bottom:

• [x] The package name
• [x] Badges for:
  • [x] Continuous integration and test coverage,
  • [x] Docs building (if you have a documentation website) (Reviewer note: https://github.com/Cosmoglobe/zodipy/issues/5),
  • [x] A repostatus.org badge (Reviewer note: https://github.com/Cosmoglobe/zodipy/issues/6),
  • [x] Python versions supported (Reviewer note: https://github.com/Cosmoglobe/zodipy/issues/7),
  • [x] Current package version (on PyPI / Conda).

NOTE: If the README has many more badges, you might want to consider using a table for badges: see this example. Such a table should be more wide than high. (Note that the a badge for pyOpenSci peer-review will be provided upon acceptance.)

• [x] Short description of package goals.
• [x] Package installation instructions
• [ ] ~Any additional setup required to use the package (authentication tokens, etc.)~ (Reviewer note: N/A)
• [x] Descriptive links to all vignettes. If the package is small, there may only be a need for one vignette which could be placed in the README.md file.
  • [x] Brief demonstration of package usage (as it makes sense - links to vignettes could also suffice here if package description is clear)
• [x] Link to your documentation website.
• [ ] If applicable, how the package compares to other similar packages and/or how it relates to other packages in the scientific ecosystem. (Reviewer note: I do not know enough about zodiacal light community to check off this one.)
• [x] Citation information

Usability

Reviewers are encouraged to submit suggestions (or pull requests) that will improve the usability of the package as a whole. Package structure should follow general community best-practices. In general please consider whether:

• [x] Package documentation is clear and easy to find and use.
• [x] The need for the package is clear
• [x] All functions have documentation and associated examples for use
• [x] The package is easy to install

Functionality

• [x] Installation: Installation succeeds as documented.
• [x] Functionality: Any functional claims of the software been confirmed.
• [x] Performance: Any performance claims of the software been confirmed.
• [x] Automated tests:
  • [x] All tests pass on the reviewer's local machine for the package version submitted by the author. Ideally this should be a tagged version making it easy for reviewers to install.
  • [x] Tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions.
• [x] Continuous Integration: Has continuous integration setup (We suggest using Github actions but any CI platform is acceptable for review)
• [x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the pyOpenSci packaging guidelines. (Reviewer note: Not using src layout but should not matter.) A few notable highlights to look at:
  • [x] Package supports modern versions of Python and not End of life versions.
  • [x] Code format is standard throughout package and follows PEP 8 guidelines (CI tests for linting pass)

For packages also submitting to JOSS

• [x] The package has an obvious research application according to JOSS's definition in their submission requirements.

Note: Be sure to check this carefully, as JOSS's submission requirements and scope differ from pyOpenSci's in terms of what types of packages are accepted.

The package contains a paper.md matching JOSS's requirements with:

• [x] A short summary describing the high-level functionality of the software
• [x] Authors: A list of authors with their affiliations
• [x] A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience.
• [x] References: With DOIs for all those that have one (e.g. papers, datasets, software).

Final approval (post-review)

• [x] The author has responded to my review and made changes to my satisfaction. I recommend approving this package.

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 4

---

Astropy-specific

• [x] Relevance to astronomy/astrophysics:
  • [ ] Out of scope: Not useful for astronomers, or specific to one project/collaboration. (This is a basis for rejection.)
  • [x] Specialized package: Useful to astronomers working in a very specific domain/field, or with a specific telescope instrument and usable not just by a single collaboration but any astronomers within that domain. Packages such as sncosmo fall into this category.
  • [ ] General package: Package that is useful for astronomers across more than a single field/instrument/telescope. Packages such as astroquery or astroplan fall into this category.
• [x] Integration with Astropy ecosystem:
  • [ ] No integration: Does not use Astropy or other Astropy Affiliated packages anywhere where it should be possible, and/or uses other libraries instead, or unnecessarily duplicates functionality found in Astropy or other Astropy Affiliated packages. (This is a basis for rejection.)
  • [x] Partial integration: Makes an effort to use Astropy or other Astropy Affiliated packages in places, but still has other places where this could be done.
  • [ ] Good integration: Uses Astropy or other Astropy Affiliated packages wherever possible. Where not, there are good reasons not to. For specific actionable items, reviewer or editor are free to open issues on the package repository directly and link them

Review Comments

~I skipped the JOSS section because I don't see a paper.md and so assume this package isn't asking for JOSS listing also.~

2024-04-16: I updated the JOSS section but left References unchecked because paper.md has empty section for that part.

This package is already in Astropy's pre-APE 22 legacy listing over at https://www.astropy.org/affiliated/legacy.html via https://github.com/astropy/astropy.github.com/pull/495 .

[MetinSa]

I'm sorry, I had forgotten about the JOSS section but would very much like a JOSS listing. I will start working on a paper.md.

[pllim]

@MetinSa , thanks for going through Astropy's old process and then again with this one. Your patience and dedication is greatly appreciated.

[MetinSa]

Apologies for the delay. I have now added a paper directory containing the paper.md file for the JOSS listing.

[MetinSa]

How long does a typical JOSS submission and review process take in this context?

[pllim]

FYI -- I have updated the checkboxes for JOSS at https://github.com/pyOpenSci/software-submission/issues/161 for my part of the review.

p.s. I never submitted anything to JOSS before so I cannot answer the questions about JOSS timeline. Hopefully others can. Thanks for your patience!

[lwasser]

hi 👋 i can help here. it's normally quick IF the submittor makes it clear when the package is submitted that:

1. The package has already been reviewed and accepted by pyOpenSci
2. Links to this review here to make it easier for the editor to see this is a fast track
3. The editor for this review reminds the JOSS editor that this is a fast tracked submission (which means that no code needs to be re-reviewed). All they have to do is a) check for scope and b) review your paper.

I've seen this go wrong when there is confusion regarding the fast track part and then things take a bit longer. but otherwise it should be a few weeks if the JOSS editor follows the process and the pyOS editor kind of keeps an eye on things ! i hope that helps.

[MetinSa]

Thanks!

[dhomeier]

Thank you for the updates and apologies for the delays in reviewing; getting reviewers with the topical expertise for Astropy into the system is a prolonged process!

[lpsinger]

Package Review

Please check off boxes as applicable, and elaborate in comments below. Your review is not limited to these topics, as described in the reviewer guide

• [x] As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (If you are unsure whether you are in conflict, please speak to your editor before starting your review).

Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

• [x] A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience in README.
• [x] Installation instructions: for the development version of the package and any non-standard dependencies in README.
• [x] Vignette(s) demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally.
• [x] Function Documentation: for all user-facing functions.
• [x] Examples for all user-facing functions.
• [x] Community guidelines including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING.
• [x] Metadata including author(s), author e-mail(s), a url, and any other relevant metadata e.g., in a pyproject.toml file or elsewhere.

Readme file requirements The package meets the readme requirements below:

• [x] Package has a README.md file in the root directory.

The README should include, from top to bottom:

• [x] The package name
• [x] Badges for:
  • [x] Continuous integration and test coverage,
  • [x] Docs building (if you have a documentation website),
  • [x] A repostatus.org badge,
  • [x] Python versions supported,
  • [x] Current package version (on PyPI / Conda).

NOTE: If the README has many more badges, you might want to consider using a table for badges: see this example. Such a table should be more wide than high. (Note that the a badge for pyOpenSci peer-review will be provided upon acceptance.)

• [x] Short description of package goals.
• [x] Package installation instructions
• [x] Any additional setup required to use the package (authentication tokens, etc.)
• [x] Descriptive links to all vignettes. If the package is small, there may only be a need for one vignette which could be placed in the README.md file.
  • [x] Brief demonstration of package usage (as it makes sense - links to vignettes could also suffice here if package description is clear)
• [x] Link to your documentation website.
• [x] If applicable, how the package compares to other similar packages and/or how it relates to other packages in the scientific ecosystem.
• [x] Citation information

Usability

Reviewers are encouraged to submit suggestions (or pull requests) that will improve the usability of the package as a whole. Package structure should follow general community best-practices. In general please consider whether:

• [x] Package documentation is clear and easy to find and use.
• [x] The need for the package is clear
• [x] All functions have documentation and associated examples for use
• [x] The package is easy to install

Functionality

• [x] Installation: Installation succeeds as documented.
• [x] Functionality: Any functional claims of the software been confirmed.
• [x] Performance: Any performance claims of the software been confirmed.
• [x] Automated tests:
  • [x] All tests pass on the reviewer's local machine for the package version submitted by the author. Ideally this should be a tagged version making it easy for reviewers to install.
  • [x] Tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions.
• [x] Continuous Integration: Has continuous integration setup (We suggest using Github actions but any CI platform is acceptable for review)
• [x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the pyOpenSci packaging guidelines. A few notable highlights to look at:
  • [x] Package supports modern versions of Python and not End of life versions.
  • [x] Code format is standard throughout package and follows PEP 8 guidelines (CI tests for linting pass)

For packages also submitting to JOSS

• [x] The package has an obvious research application according to JOSS's definition in their submission requirements.

Note: Be sure to check this carefully, as JOSS's submission requirements and scope differ from pyOpenSci's in terms of what types of packages are accepted.

The package contains a paper.md matching JOSS's requirements with:

• [x] A short summary describing the high-level functionality of the software
• [x] Authors: A list of authors with their affiliations
• [x] A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience.
• [x] References: With DOIs for all those that have one (e.g. papers, datasets, software).

Final approval (post-review)

• [x] The author has responded to my review and made changes to my satisfaction. I recommend approving this package.

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 2 (includes original review as an Astropy affiliated package)

---

Review Comments

Mostly reproduced from my Astropy affiliated package review.

ZodiPy looks like a very healthy package. Here are some spots where there is room for improvement.

1. It could have much more integration with Astropy core and Astropy affiliated packages. Aside from Astropy units, the public API does not have much integration with Astropy. Here are some issues:

• The get_emission_ang method basically depends on two coordinates that define the ray from the observer to the direction in which they are looking (plus a time and a wavelength). The vertex of the ray can be specified in Cartesian coordinates and the direction of the ray in polar coordinates. Internally, the method instantiates SkyCoord objects in order to do positional astronomy calculations. It would be ideal if the user could specify both coordinates using SkyCoord instances. That would unify 5 arguments (theta, phi, obs, obs_pos, lonlat) into only two.
• Conversion between coordinate frames is done using healpy.Rotator but could be done more simply and idiomatically with SkyCoord frame transformations.
• There is a synthetic photometry feature to integrate the observed flux over a bandpass. ZodiPy could employ the Astropy affiliated package synphot here.
• ZodiPy can evaluate the emission on HEALPix maps, but uses healpy to do this. It could use the Astropy affiliated package astropy-healpix here.
• ZodiPy can plot emission components on all-sky maps, but uses healpy to do this. It could use reproject + astropy-healpix here for more flexible plotting.

2. The approaches to Numpy vectorization and Python multiprocessing parallelism are somewhat fixed function, and may not be performant for all use cases.

• Methods do not support Numpy broadcasting for arbitrary input shapes. For example, it appears that obs_time must be scalar. For another, this line in get_obs_and_earth_positions discards the shape of the input arguments:

  return obs_position.reshape(3, 1, 1).value, earth_position.reshape(3, 1, 1).value

• ZodiPy supports parallelism using Python multiprocessing, but it creates its own process pool and discards it when it is done. It would be nice if it supported the pool being passed by the user so that the cost of spawning child Python interpreters is not borne repeatedly. Also there are situations where it is necessary to use a custom Pool subclass (e.g. billiard, https://pypi.org/project/billiard/).

3. Deviations from pyOpenSci packaging guidelines:

• Needs a conda-forge package.
• The value of the license in the project metadata (tool.poetry.license) is not an SPDX license identifier. Please set it to either of the allowed values, GPL-3.0-only or GPL-3.0-or-later.
• Consider adding more project URLs (project.urls section in pyproject.toml). For project URL names that PyPI displays prominently with icons, see https://github.com/pypi/warehouse/blob/main/warehouse/templates/packaging/detail.html.

4. Code style

The project uses ruff for code formatting, but it is only run on the module itself. Ruff would make changes to the Python modules in the tests directory. Please consider running ruff on the entire project, including the tests.

[MetinSa]

Thank you for the review @lpsinger!

I have made the following changes after going through the review:

• Ruff now runs on the entire repository (https://github.com/Cosmoglobe/zodipy/commit/44b3cc04ffae136d698e9e4082e7b3597f2bbb59)
• The licence is changed to a SPDX license identifier (https://github.com/Cosmoglobe/zodipy/commit/5eb8df7276188417642fef72ff517b4d7e50f231))
• The pyproject.toml file now includes urls to the documentation and repository (https://github.com/Cosmoglobe/zodipy/commit/7ae9119c06088a86e7b9c9143c0934ca25c3908b)
• A PR is open to add ZodiPy as a conda-forge package (https://github.com/conda-forge/staged-recipes/pull/26097)

Additionally, I have opened several issues (see the mentions above) to address your suggestions for improvement and to better integrate ZodiPy with Astropy. I will start working on these as soon as I find the time.

[dhomeier]

Thank you for your careful and helpful reviews @pllim and @lpsinger, and for your quick reply @MetinSa! I'll second the recommendation to include the tests in code style checks, as in a similar attempt in astropy/astropy#16158 we have discovered a number of tests that were not testing exactly the intended functionality. That should not block acceptance of your package at this time, though.

@pllim I only found one reference, PyEphem, without a DOI in paper.bib, but it does not seem to have one in the ASCL entry either – do you think it should have one?

[pllim]

I'm not familiar with what JOSS wants in its References section. If it's ok to leave empty, then I'm fine with that. All in all, I don't think it should block acceptance.

[lpsinger]

Thank you for the review @lpsinger!

I have made the following changes after going through the review:

You're very welcome! Sorry it took me so long to post it.

I've checked off all of the remaining items in the review template.

[dhomeier]

I'm not familiar with what JOSS wants in its References section. If it's ok to leave empty, then I'm fine with that. All in all, I don't think it should block acceptance.

The references are all there in the paper.bib file – I was assuming JOSS would accept a standard LaTeX setup, but not actually sure how it handles it with a .md main text – never mind, this is exactly as prescribed in the Author guide.

[MetinSa]

I'm not familiar with what JOSS wants in its References section. If it's ok to leave empty, then I'm fine with that. All in all, I don't think it should block acceptance.

The reference section look all right in this paper draft compiled with the JOSS gh-action.

[dhomeier]

Yes, I've checked that off and the reviewers have already checked their final approval. Just waiting if there is a short term fix for the conda-forge build, but since that is really a healpy issue, it should not block either.

[pllim]

Ah, sorry I misunderstood how JOSS formatting works. I will check off the References box now (oh nvm, looks like Derek did it for me, thanks!). Thanks for the clarifications!

[pllim]

I think we better figure out how to list this on our webpage soon? 😬

cc @eteq @lwasser

[dhomeier]

Great, with conda-forge succeeding for Linux and macOS, this should be ready for JOSS submission.

---

🎉 zodipy has been approved by pyOpenSci! Thank you @MetinSa for submitting ZodiPy and many thanks to @pllim and @lpsinger for reviewing this package! 😸

Author Wrap Up Tasks

There are a few things left to do to wrap up this submission:

• [x] Activate Zenodo watching the repo if you haven't already done so.
• [x] Tag and create a release to create a Zenodo version and DOI.
• [x] Add the badge for pyOpenSci peer-review to the README.md. The badge should be [![pyOpenSci](https://tinyurl.com/y22nb8up)](https://github.com/pyOpenSci/software-review/issues/issue-number).
• [x] Please fill out the post-review survey. All maintainers and reviewers should fill this out.

It looks like you would like to submit this package to JOSS. Here are the next steps:

• [x] Once the JOSS issue is opened for the package, we strongly suggest that you subscribe to issue updates. This will allow you to continue to update the issue labels on this review as it goes through the JOSS process.
• [x] Login to the JOSS website and fill out the JOSS submission form using your Zenodo DOI. When you fill out the form, be sure to mention and link to the approved pyOpenSci review. JOSS will tag your package for expedited review if it is already pyOpenSci approved.
• [x] Wait for a JOSS editor to approve the presubmission (which includes a scope check).
• [x] Once the package is approved by JOSS, you will be given instructions by JOSS about updating the citation information in your README file.
• [x] When the JOSS review is complete, add a comment to your review in the pyOpenSci software-review repo here that it has been approved by JOSS. An editor will then add the JOSS-approved label to this issue.

🎉 Congratulations! You are now published with both JOSS and pyOpenSci! 🎉

Editor Final Checks

Please complete the final steps to wrap up this review. Editor, please do the following:

• [x] Make sure that the maintainers filled out the post-review survey
• [x] Invite the maintainers to submit a blog post highlighting their package. Feel free to use / adapt language found in this comment to help guide the author.
• [x] Change the status tag of the issue to 6/pyOS-approved6 🚀🚀🚀.
• [x] Invite the package maintainer(s) and both reviewers to slack if they wish to join.
• [x] If the author submits to JOSS, please continue to update the labels for JOSS on this issue until the author is accepted (do not remove the 6/pyOS-approved label). Once accepted add the label 9/joss-approved to the issue. Skip this check if the package is not submitted to JOSS.
• [x] If the package is JOSS-accepted please add the JOSS doi to the YAML at the top of the issue.

---

If you have any feedback for us about the review process please feel free to share it here. We are always looking to improve our process and documentation in the peer-review-guide.

[MetinSa]

🎉🎉 I have completed the Zenodo and pyOpenSci peer-review steps(https://github.com/Cosmoglobe/zodipy/commit/2c03c586ae0b4fe7ab06d12d2115c215dbdf9b5d, https://github.com/Cosmoglobe/zodipy/commit/b5d0031fe7fc3d6c05c5aec942c6a067b86c5cdd) and will fill out the post-review survey tomorrow (pre-review survey is filled out already). Edit: post-review survey is filled out and I have submitted to JOSS referencing this thread and the Zenodo DOI.

Thank you to everyone here for the reviews and all the help:)

[MetinSa]

JOSS paper is approved and published https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06648!

[dhomeier]

Congratulations again @MetinSa to your successful publication with pyOpenSci and JOSS! I'd like to take the opportunity to invite you and your maintainer team to write a blog post (totally optional) on your package for us to promote your work! If you are interested - here are a few examples of other blog posts:

pandera rdata SunPy (external blog)

and here is a markdown example that you could use as a guide when creating your post.

It can even be a tutorial-like post that highlights what your package does and how to use it. Then we can share it with people to get the word out about your package.

If you are too busy for this, no worries. But if you have time - we'd love to spread the word about your package!

[MetinSa]

Thank you @dhomeier and a big thanks to everyone else involved in the review. I will try to write up a blog post sometime in the future when I find the time.

[dhomeier]

Closing the issue as completed as ZodiPy is now listed on https://www.pyopensci.org/python-packages.html

Feel free to follow up with a blog post whenever convenient; also if you wish to join the pyOpenSci Slack space @dncnwtts or @hermda02, you are welcome to send us an email address to be signed up with.