[PRE REVIEW]: BurnMan -- a Python toolkit for planetary geophysics, geochemistry and thermodynamics

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @bobmyhill (Robert Myhill)
Repository: https://github.com/geodynamics/burnman
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper
Version: v1.1.0
Editor: @jedbrown
Reviewers: @simonwmatthews, @kaylai
Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b9b95117098cf85598bb01dadbe62ee2"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b9b95117098cf85598bb01dadbe62ee2/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b9b95117098cf85598bb01dadbe62ee2/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b9b95117098cf85598bb01dadbe62ee2)

Author instructions

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

@bobmyhill 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=0.95 s (288.1 files/s, 113666.2 lines/s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                      files          blank        comment           code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          211          10112          12535          75958
TeX                               2             97              0           1656
SQL                               1              0              0           1651
Jupyter Notebook                  8              0           3070           1087
reStructuredText                 41            467            313            531
Markdown                          6             98              0            404
Bourne Shell                      1             35              6            153
make                              1             24              5            126
YAML                              3              8              7             63
Bourne Again Shell                1             14             25             37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            275          10855          15961          81666
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1654

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/0031-9201(81)90046-7 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05609.x is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.6903424 is OK
- 10.6084/m9.figshare.4865333 is OK
- 10.1029/2009GC002540 is OK
- 10.1029/2022GC010427 is OK
- 10.2138/am.2010.3354 is OK
- 10.1093/gji/ggab394 is OK
- 10.1016/S0364-5916(02)00035-4 is OK
- 10.5194/se-5-425-2014 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-019-1483-x is OK
- 10.1016/j.pepi.2020.106552 is OK
- 10.1029/2018JE005844 is OK
- 10.1038/ngeo2898 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1981.tb04891.x is OK
- 10.1098/rsta.1982.0063 is OK
- 10.1080/00107510701529653 is OK
- 10.1016/0031-9201(77)90096-6 is OK
- 10.1029/96JB03270 is OK
- 10.2138/am-2003-2-307 is OK
- 10.1126/science.1233514 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1525-1314.1998.00140.x is OK
- 10.1111/j.1525-1314.2010.00923.x is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2010.04890.x is OK
- 10.1093/petrology/egv020 is OK
- 10.1002/2013GC005122 is OK
- 10.1016/j.gca.2016.05.027 is OK
- 10.1007/s00410-017-1436-z is OK
- 10.1093/gji/ggac180 is OK
- 10.1093/gji/ggab242 is OK
- 10.1016/j.epsl.2016.11.031 is OK
- 10.1093/gji/ggu244 is OK
- 10.1007/s00410-021-01825-1 is OK
- 10.1038/s41561-019-0452-1 is OK
- 10.1126/sciadv.aar2538 is OK
- 10.1093/gji/ggx195 is OK
- 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/32 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[bobmyhill]

Potential Reviewers:

• simonwmatthews (not on list)
• kaylai (not on list)
• PennyWieser (not on list)
• aswolf (not on list)
• SHDShim (not on list)
• ghfbsd (not on list)
• anowacki (row 1049)
• hemmelig (row 2175 tenuous connection)

[bobmyhill]

List of potential reviewers updated.

[arfon]

@bobmyhill - thanks for your submission to JOSS. We're currently managing a large backlog of submissions and the editor most appropriate for your area is already rather busy.

For now, we will need to waitlist this paper and process it as the queue reduces. Thanks for your patience!

[bobmyhill]

Thanks for letting me know, @arfon. If there's anything I can do to help (reviewing other submissions, for example), I'll be happy to do so.

[kthyng]

@bobmyhill here is registration if you want to sign up as a reviewer! https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html

[bobmyhill]

@kthyng thanks, done!

[kthyng]

@jedbrown Could you edit this submission?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @jedbrown as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[jedbrown]

@editorialbot assign @jedbrown as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @jedbrown is now the editor

[kthyng]

Hi @jedbrown! Are you still up for editing this submission?

[jedbrown]

Yeah, sorry. Realistically, I'm wildly oversubscribed until after SIAM (next week). I'll get to it as soon as I can.

[jdannberg]

Hi @jedbrown, I just wanted to ask if there are any news on the manuscript since it still says pre-review.
Thank you!

[jedbrown]

Alright, finally breathing room. Sorry this took so long. I've installed the software and done a pre-review; it looks good to move forward and I've started emailing potential reviewers.

[jedbrown]

@anowacki @GeoscienceSoftware 👋 Would you be available to review this submission to JOSS?

[jdannberg]

Alright, finally breathing room. Sorry this took so long. I've installed the software and done a pre-review; it looks good to move forward and I've started emailing potential reviewers.

Great, thanks a lot!

[jedbrown]

@editorialbot add @simonwmatthews as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@simonwmatthews added to the reviewers list!

[jedbrown]

@editorialbot add @kaylai as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@kaylai added to the reviewers list!

[jedbrown]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #5389.

[anowacki]

Hi @jedbrown. It's worth noting that I am currently working with @bobmyhill on a project, and so it's possible that may be viewed as a conflict of interest.

If you are happy to go ahead with me as a reviewer, then I would be willing to review this. However, please also be aware that I won't be able to make much progress on this for a few weeks. If that is not soon enough, then please do suggest others.

Finally, I am not an expert in Python and so whilst I can look at the API and documentation side of things, I am not that well placed to look at the tests or suggest improvements to general reproducibility.

[jedbrown]

Thanks @anowacki. In light of that conflict and having found two reviewers, we'll let you off the hook for this one. 😄 Thanks for your concern regarding documentation and reproducibility.