[PRE REVIEW]: Nanomesh: A Python workflow tool for generating meshes from image data

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @stefsmeets (Stef Smeets)
Repository: https://github.com/hpgem/nanomesh
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss_paper
Version: 0.9.0
Editor: @prashjha
Reviewers: @jameshgrn, @vijaysm
Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0fcbf050ec48e9f1aa2ec5d8f1d8770d"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0fcbf050ec48e9f1aa2ec5d8f1d8770d/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0fcbf050ec48e9f1aa2ec5d8f1d8770d/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0fcbf050ec48e9f1aa2ec5d8f1d8770d)

Author instructions

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

@stefsmeets if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

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 1.88  T=0.37 s (398.4 files/s, 282331.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          62           1636           1944           4321
Markdown                        26            988              0           2438
Jupyter Notebook                20              0          90560            948
reStructuredText                24            258            342            225
YAML                             7             30             16            218
TeX                              1             12              0            134
DOS Batch                        2              8              1             28
Bourne Shell                     2              0              0             22
make                             1              5              3             22
TOML                             1              0              0              3
SVG                              1              0              0              1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           147           2937          92866           8360
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1244

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/2629697 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01450 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1173115 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.033903 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.72.153102 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1007/bfb0014497 may be a valid DOI for title: Triangle: Engineering a 2D quality mesh generator and Delaunay triangulator

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[arfon]

@editorialbot invite @prashjha as editor

👋 @prashjha – would you be willing to edit this submission for JOSS?

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot invite @prashjha as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[prashjha]

Hi @arfon and @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman, thanks for the invite.

[prashjha]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @prashjha is now the editor

[prashjha]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/2629697 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01450 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1173115 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.033903 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.72.153102 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1007/bfb0014497 may be a valid DOI for title: Triangle: Engineering a 2D quality mesh generator and Delaunay triangulator

INVALID DOIs

- None

[prashjha]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[prashjha]

Hi @stefsmeets, could you suggest a couple of reviewers for this submission? Also, please check one of the references in your paper (see the error above).

[prashjha]

Hi @KParas, would you be interested in reviewing this submission for JOSS? I believe it is related to your interest. Thank you!!

[prashjha]

Hello @jameshgrn, any chance you could review this submission for JOSS?

[jameshgrn]

@prashjha sure, what all do I need to do? would be a first time for me

[prashjha]

@jameshgrn, awesome. Generally speaking, reviewing software articles for JOSS entails testing the software/library and making sure software is well documented and general enough for broad usage. If you think something is not right with the software, for example, a test does not work or part of the code is not well documented, you can open an issue in the software repository and request authors to address these issues.

To make the review easy, you will be assigned a checklist designed to test various aspects of the open source library.

You can check out this JOSS guideline for carrying out reviews. You can also quickly look at one or two past reviews in JOSS to get the idea.

Let me know if you are still up for reviewing this submission and I will add you as a reviewer. Thanks.

[stefsmeets]

Hi @stefsmeets, could you suggest a couple of reviewers for this submission? Also, please check one of the references in your paper (see the error above).

Hi @prashjha , I'd suggest:

@vijaysm
@daniellivingston
@abhishekta
@krober10nd

[KParas]

Hi @KParas, would you be interested in reviewing this submission for JOSS? I believe it is related to your interest. Thank you!!

@prashjha Thank you for the invite. The topic seems quite interesting, but unfortunately reviewing this one is not possible due to my current time schedule.

[vijaysm]

@stefsmeets @prashjha I should be available to review this in 2-3 weeks.

[krober10nd]

Sorry have to turn this one down. Currently very busy. Thanks for the offer!

[jameshgrn]

@prashjha I can do it, feel free to add me.

[prashjha]

@editorialbot add @jameshgrn as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@jameshgrn added to the reviewers list!

[prashjha]

Hi, @vijaysm, thanks for the quick response. I am okay with the timeline. I am adding you as a reviewer.

[prashjha]

@editorialbot add @vijaysm as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@vijaysm added to the reviewers list!

[prashjha]

@krober10nd thank you for a prompt response...no problem. :)

[prashjha]

Hi @stefsmeets we got two reviewers...I will start the review soon in a new GitHub issue.

Thanks, @jameshgrn and @vijaysm, for agreeing to review this submission. I really appreciate your time and effort in advance.

[prashjha]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #4654.