[PRE REVIEW]: pygwb: a Python-based library for gravitational-wave background searches

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @a-renzini (Arianna Renzini)
Repository: https://github.com/a-renzini/pygwb/
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss_submission
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @plaplant
Reviewers: @Sbozzolo
Managing EiC: Dan Foreman-Mackey

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/29911164eb1698ada6d2c9a3ee585590"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/29911164eb1698ada6d2c9a3ee585590/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/29911164eb1698ada6d2c9a3ee585590/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/29911164eb1698ada6d2c9a3ee585590)

Author instructions

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

@a-renzini 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]

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

[dfm]

@a-renzini — Thanks for your submission! All the suitable editors are currently working at capacity so I'm going to need to wait list this review for now and update you as soon as an editor is available.

In the meantime, the paper is failing to generate since it has an invalid ORCID. Can you check all the ORCIDs and update the paper?

[a-renzini]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[a-renzini]

@a-renzini — Thanks for your submission! All the suitable editors are currently working at capacity so I'm going to need to wait list this review for now and update you as soon as an editor is available.

In the meantime, the paper is failing to generate since it has an invalid ORCID. Can you check all the ORCIDs and update the paper?

Thank you! I have now updated the .md and hopefully the generation will go through. It was already succeeding on my side so I am not entirely sure whether I fixed the issue, so I tried using the editorial bot generation command.

[editorialbot]

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

[dfm]

@editorialbot check repository

[dfm]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.31 s (265.8 files/s, 70588.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          43           1821           2609           8277
Jupyter Notebook                13              0           5565           1462
INI                              7             16             99            316
Markdown                         5            112              0            293
TeX                              1             31              0            193
YAML                             3             20             15            171
reStructuredText                 8            212            374            164
make                             1              4              6             10
TOML                             1              2              0              6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            82           2218           8668          10892
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1579

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.softx.2021.100657 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa278 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1103/physrevd.104.022004 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 is OK
- 10.1007/s41114-017-0004-1 is OK
- 10.3390/galaxies10010034 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.102001 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[dfm]

@a-renzini — Thanks! As the bot has requested, we require an explicit "Statement of need" section title in the manuscript. Please add that - otherwise it's looking good.

[dfm]

I should also add - is it true that none of the other authors have ORCIDs? Please ask your co-authors to add or tell you their ORCIDs. That field should only be left blank in cases where the author truly doesn't have one!

[a-renzini]

I should also add - is it true that none of the other authors have ORCIDs? Please ask your co-authors to add or tell you their ORCIDs. That field should only be left blank in cases where the author truly doesn't have one!

Thanks - we are collecting the author ORCIDs and adding in the missing section. We'll refresh the submission soon!

[dfm]

@a-renzini — Another quick clarification: I believe that this submission is made in parallel with a AAS publication - is that right? If so, we need to remember to make reviewers aware of our JOSS collaboration with AAS publishing, and that as part of this collaboration, AAS publishing makes a small donation to the running costs of JOSS.

[a-renzini]

@dfm that's right - the AAS submission is currently under review (submissions were made roughly at the same time).

[a-renzini]

ORCIDs and statement of need have been added!

@editorialbot generate pdf

[dfm]

@editorialbot generate pdf

The message to the bot always needs to be the first part of the comment!

[editorialbot]

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

[a-renzini]

Hello! just checking in to ask whether a reviewer has been assigned to this? Thanks!

[dfm]

@a-renzini — Thanks for checking in! Unfortunately all the editors are working at capacity still. I'll try to get someone assigned ASAP and keep you posted. Thanks for your patience!

[plaplant]

@editorialbot assign @plaplant as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @plaplant is now the editor

[plaplant]

@a-renzini thanks for your patience! I'll be editing the submission, so please let me know if you have any questions.

The next step is for me to find two reviewers. I will reach out to folks, but if you have suggestions for people who you know might be a good fit, then please let me know. I'll reply to this thread as I find good candidates. Once we have two reviewers, we'll move on to the review stage.

[plaplant]

@editorialbot add @Sbozzolo as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@Sbozzolo added to the reviewers list!

[a-renzini]

@a-renzini thanks for your patience! I'll be editing the submission, so please let me know if you have any questions.

The next step is for me to find two reviewers. I will reach out to folks, but if you have suggestions for people who you know might be a good fit, then please let me know. I'll reply to this thread as I find good candidates. Once we have two reviewers, we'll move on to the review stage.

Great, thanks! I will reach out if I come up with a potential second reviewer.

[plaplant]

@a-renzini I'm still looking for a second reviewer, but I'm going to go ahead and start the main review thread. @Sbozzolo will be traveling soon, and I wanted to make sure there was a chance to post initial feedback. When I find a second reviewer, I will add them to the review thread as well.

[plaplant]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #5454.