Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[PRE REVIEW]: NuclearToolkit.jl: A Julia package for nuclear structure calculations #4665

Closed
editorialbot opened this issue Aug 10, 2022 · 35 comments
Closed

[PRE REVIEW]: NuclearToolkit.jl: A Julia package for nuclear structure calculations #4665

editorialbot opened this issue Aug 10, 2022 · 35 comments
Assignees
@villaa @mdavezac @rkurchin
Labels
Julia pre-review TeX Track: 3 (PE) Physics and Engineering

Comments

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator

editorialbot commented Aug 10, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Submitting author: @SotaYoshida (Sota Yoshida)
Repository: https://github.com/SotaYoshida/NuclearToolkit.jl
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): josspaper
Version: v0.1.0
Editor: @rkurchin
Reviewers: @mdavezac, @villaa
Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/20cd6c8238e26c1b32a613e982cd8350"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/20cd6c8238e26c1b32a613e982cd8350/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/20cd6c8238e26c1b32a613e982cd8350/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/20cd6c8238e26c1b32a613e982cd8350)

Author instructions

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

@SotaYoshida 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
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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
Copy link
Collaborator Author 

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.31 s (162.2 files/s, 78984.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                           34            810            707          22574
TeX                              1             10              0            219
Markdown                         8             54              0            198
TOML                             5             35              2            133
YAML                             3              0              2             84
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            51            909            711          23208
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Wordcount for paper.md is 448

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author 

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1103/RevModPhys.77.427 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.92.015002 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101917-021120 is OK
- 10.1016/j.physrep.2011.02.001 is OK
- 10.1088/0031-8949/91/8/083007 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1773 is OK
- 10.3389/fphy.2020.00098 is OK
- 10.1140/epja/i2003-10096-0 is OK
- 10.1093/ptep/ptac057 is OK
- 10.1017/CBO9780511596834 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1016/S0146-6410(01)00159-4 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2013.07.022 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nds.2014.07.022 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2019.06.011 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

@danielskatz
Copy link

@SotaYoshida - thanks for your submission.
Due to a current shortage of editors (that we are working to resolve), I'm going to put it on our waiting list until an appropriate editor is available.

While we wait, you could work on the invalid DOIs that editorialbot suggests. Please feel free to make changes to your .bib file, then use the command @editorialbot check references to check again, and the command @editorialbot generate pdf when the references are right to make a new PDF. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

@danielskatz danielskatz added the waitlisted Submissions in the JOSS backlog due to reduced service mode. label Aug 10, 2022
@SotaYoshida
Copy link

@editorialbot check references

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author 

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

OK DOIs

- h10.1016/S0146-6410(01)00159-4 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.77.427 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.92.015002 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101917-021120 is OK
- 10.1016/j.physrep.2011.02.001 is OK
- 10.1088/0031-8949/91/8/083007 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1773 is OK
- 10.3389/fphy.2020.00098 is OK
- 10.1140/epja/i2003-10096-0 is OK
- 10.1093/ptep/ptac057 is OK
- 10.1017/CBO9780511596834 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2013.07.022 is OK
- 10.1016/j.nds.2014.07.022 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2019.06.011 is INVALID because of 'doi.org/' prefix

@SotaYoshida
Copy link

@editorialbot check references

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author 

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

OK DOIs

- h10.1016/S0146-6410(01)00159-4 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.77.427 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.92.015002 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101917-021120 is OK
- 10.1016/j.physrep.2011.02.001 is OK
- 10.1088/0031-8949/91/8/083007 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1773 is OK
- 10.3389/fphy.2020.00098 is OK
- 10.1140/epja/i2003-10096-0 is OK
- 10.1093/ptep/ptac057 is OK
- 10.1017/CBO9780511596834 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2013.07.022 is OK
- 10.1016/j.nds.2014.07.022 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2019.06.011 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

@SotaYoshida
Copy link

@editorialbot generate pdf

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

@SotaYoshida
Copy link

@editorialbot generate pdf

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

@SotaYoshida
Copy link

@editorialbot generate pdf

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

@SotaYoshida
Copy link

@danielskatz Thank you for your kind support.

Due to a current shortage of editors (that we are working to resolve), I'm going to put it on our waiting list until an appropriate editor is available.

No problem. I look forward to hearing from you.

@editorialbot editorialbot added the Track: 3 (PE) Physics and Engineering label Aug 12, 2022
@rkurchin
Copy link

@danielskatz this is slightly out of my area (I do electronic structure stuff, but don't really deal with nuclear structure), but given I know we're short on editors with Julia expertise, I could take it as I'm about to have another one accepted.

@danielskatz
Copy link

@editorialbot assign @rkurchin as editor

Thanks very much!

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Assigned! @rkurchin is now the editor

@danielskatz danielskatz removed the waitlisted Submissions in the JOSS backlog due to reduced service mode. label Aug 15, 2022
@rkurchin
Copy link

👋 @Datseris, @mdavezac, @goerz, would you be willing to 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

@mdavezac
Copy link

I would be happy to, though someone with experience in nuclear structure might be a better fit (my expertise, if any, is also with electronic structure).

@Datseris
Copy link

Hello, unfortunately I am completely overwhelmed and out of bandwidth with other projects, so I have to politely decline here. I wish best of luck to the submitting author!

@rkurchin
Copy link

No problem, George, thanks for the quick reply!

@mdavezac, our list is a bit short (read: completely lacking AFAICT) on reviewers with nuclear structure expertise who are also Julia users, so I might just invite one or two folks who know nuclear structure but don't list Julia as a language and hope we can get some complementarity with folks like yourself who use Julia and certainly at least know quantum mechanics. Hopefully that sounds okay to you, and thanks for your willingness!

@rkurchin
Copy link

👋 @munkm and/or @villaa, would you be willing to 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

I recognize neither of you lists Julia as a language, but we're somewhat short on folks with nuclear structure expertise to review this, see discussion in prior comments...

@villaa
Copy link

villaa commented Aug 16, 2022

@rkurchin I agree to review this submission.

@rkurchin
Copy link

@editorialbot add @mdavezac as reviewer

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@mdavezac added to the reviewers list!

@rkurchin
Copy link

@editorialbot add @villaa as reviewer

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@villaa added to the reviewers list!

@villaa
Copy link

villaa commented Aug 17, 2022

@editorialbot generate pdf

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

@mdavezac mdavezac mentioned this issue Aug 21, 2022
Closed
@mdavezac
Copy link

@rkurchin, if I remember the JOSS review process well, a [REVIEW] issue will be opened at some point? Or should it go here?

@rkurchin
Copy link

@editorialbot start review

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

OK, I've started the review over in #4694.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@villaa villaa

@mdavezac mdavezac

@rkurchin rkurchin

Labels
Julia pre-review TeX Track: 3 (PE) Physics and Engineering
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
7 participants
@villaa @mdavezac @danielskatz @rkurchin @Datseris @SotaYoshida @editorialbot