[REVIEW]: `pygwb`: a Python-based library for gravitational-wave background searches #5454

editorialbot · 2023-05-08T22:56:41Z

Submitting author: @a-renzini (Arianna Renzini)
Repository: https://github.com/a-renzini/pygwb/
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss_submission
Version: v1.4.0
Editor: @plaplant
Reviewers: @Sbozzolo, @cmbiwer
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10532825

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)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@Sbozzolo, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @plaplant know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @Sbozzolo

📝 Checklist for @cmbiwer

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

editorialbot · 2023-05-08T22:56:42Z

Hello humans, 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 · 2023-05-08T22:58:45Z

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

Sbozzolo · 2023-05-09T01:50:56Z

@editorialbot generate my checklist

editorialbot · 2023-05-09T01:50:57Z

@Sbozzolo I can't do that because you are not a reviewer

Sbozzolo · 2023-05-09T01:52:07Z

@Sbozzolo I can't do that because you are not a reviewer

@plaplant

Sbozzolo · 2023-05-09T01:57:01Z

Hi @a-renzini, I will be reviewing your package.

I wanted to clear some expectations regarding the timeline: I will soon leave for some travel, so I won't be able to work on the review for the next 3 weeks or so. I am sorry about that since I see that you've already waited for a month.

Even if the second reviewer hasn't been found yet, I would invite you to look at the review checklist and make sure that your project checks all the boxes.

From my cursory first look, I can already see some areas for improvement. In particular, the documentation seems particularly bare bones. Critically, the available documentation does not tell me what the code does nor how to use it.
Here are some of the issues I've seen:

The readme does not say what the package is about
The readme has broken links to your CI badges
The readme does not provide installation instructions
The "about" page in the documentation consist of a single diagram (the meaning of which is unclear to me)
The "installation" page points to a repository that is not GitHub
It is unclear what version of Python is supported, but the installation instruction recommends Python 3.8 and points users to a link to a version of Anaconda that is 2 years old.
The "pip install" method does no longer work for Debian 12+ or Ubuntu 23.04+ (see PEP 668). More distributions will probably follow soon.
The "installation" page also claims that there are no released versions.
The "contributing" page points users to LIGO servers
The "contributing" page does not mention pre-commit or coverage, but mentions pytest (which is not listed among the dependencies).
Why is there a pickle file in the repo? (Pickle file are not portable).
Most tutorials do not contain any explanation, are not well formatted, and some have warnings/errors.
Acronyms are used but not defined (e.g., SGWB, CBC).
The documentation for the APIs is also bare bones. For example, there are no explanations for functions/arguments, or types.

My personal rule of thumb to identify good documentation is to see if I could use the code just looking at the documentation. Currently, this is not possible. I will open an issue in your repo regarding this.

I am looking forward to diving into your package!

plaplant · 2023-05-09T17:09:39Z

@Sbozzolo thanks for your initial review! Apologies for the editorialbot command not working, please try it again when you get a chance.

Sbozzolo · 2023-05-09T20:48:49Z

Review checklist for @Sbozzolo

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/a-renzini/pygwb/?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@a-renzini) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

plaplant · 2023-05-12T15:36:13Z

@editorialbot add @cmbiwer as reviewer

editorialbot · 2023-05-12T15:36:15Z

@cmbiwer added to the reviewers list!

cmbiwer · 2023-05-17T12:28:01Z

I'll start reviewing and filling out the checklist on Friday.

cmbiwer · 2023-05-17T20:03:57Z

Review checklist for @cmbiwer

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/a-renzini/pygwb/?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@a-renzini) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

cmbiwer · 2023-05-19T16:52:34Z

I added some comments to the issue @Sbozzolo started here: a-renzini/pygwb#1

I reviewed it without looking at @Sbozzolo review. And ended up with many of the same issues. I worked around some of the issues with the installation to try the test suite. I added a couple more things to that already existing issue on pygwb.

plaplant · 2023-05-19T17:59:18Z

@Sbozzolo @cmbiwer thank you so much for you initial reviews! I appreciate you making an issue on the upstream repo to keep track of specific suggestions You can also feel free to open separate issues for each individual suggestion, rather than having a single large issue.

@a-renzini please begin addressing the issues raised by the reviewers. Once you feel you have addressed them adequately, you can reply to this thread. Let me know if you have any questions!

arfon · 2023-05-22T18:08:39Z

@plaplant @dfm – just logging here that the AAS-associated paper is 10.3847/1538-4357/acd775

Sbozzolo · 2023-05-28T17:07:50Z

@a-renzini

The existence of two nearly identical public repositories (https://github.com/a-renzini/pygwb/, https://git.ligo.org/pygwb/pygwb) is a little bit confusing. Which one is the "real" one?

If you want to continue the development on GitLab but also want to be on GitHub, maybe you can consider mirroring the repository instead of creating a separate one?

a-renzini · 2023-05-28T17:25:06Z

@a-renzini

The existence of two nearly identical public repositories (https://github.com/a-renzini/pygwb/, https://git.ligo.org/pygwb/pygwb) is a little bit confusing. Which one is the "real" one?

If you want to continue the development on GitLab but also want to be on GitHub, maybe you can consider mirroring the repository instead of creating a separate one?

Hello @Sbozzolo - that is exactly what I've done; the GitHub is a mirror of the GitLab! We are currently developing on GitLab.

Sbozzolo · 2023-05-28T17:31:54Z

@a-renzini
The existence of two nearly identical public repositories (https://github.com/a-renzini/pygwb/, https://git.ligo.org/pygwb/pygwb) is a little bit confusing. Which one is the "real" one?
If you want to continue the development on GitLab but also want to be on GitHub, maybe you can consider mirroring the repository instead of creating a separate one?

Hello @Sbozzolo - that is exactly what I've done; the GitHub is a mirror of the GitLab! We are currently developing on GitLab.

It doesn't look like that the mirroring is working properly: the latest commit on GitLab is 36e6550eb5622d4456861b46c10c047163d394a5, but this commit does not exist on GitHub.

Also, if the repo on GitHub is just a mirror, I'd recommend pointing users to the GitLab repo in the readme (and maybe renaming the repo to pygwb-mirror, see, e.g., https://github.com/emacs-mirror/emacs). Your JOSS submission says that the link to the repo is the GitHub one, so maybe we should amend that too.

a-renzini · 2023-05-28T17:42:50Z

@a-renzini
The existence of two nearly identical public repositories (https://github.com/a-renzini/pygwb/, https://git.ligo.org/pygwb/pygwb) is a little bit confusing. Which one is the "real" one?
If you want to continue the development on GitLab but also want to be on GitHub, maybe you can consider mirroring the repository instead of creating a separate one?

Hello @Sbozzolo - that is exactly what I've done; the GitHub is a mirror of the GitLab! We are currently developing on GitLab.

It doesn't look like that the mirroring is working properly: the latest commit on GitLab is 36e6550eb5622d4456861b46c10c047163d394a5, but this commit does not exist on GitHub.

Also, if the repo on GitHub is just a mirror, I'd recommend pointing users to the GitLab repo in the readme (and maybe renaming the repo to pygwb-mirror, see, e.g., https://github.com/emacs-mirror/emacs). Your JOSS submission says that the link to the repo is the GitHub one, so maybe we should amend that too.

That is odd! I have just checked, and indeed the mirror failed a month ago. I will get that fixed asap.

I'll look into pointing/renaming as suggested. This does bring up a more top-level question though: during initial submission (which was a while ago now) we fixed the version for review to v1.0.0, which is the one associated to the ApJ paper. Shall we review this version for the JOSS paper, or shall we review the most up-to-date version? This will make a difference to the documentation. We don't have strong feelings either way; I don't know what the standard for JOSS papers is (whether the paper is linked to a specific version of the code, or whether it is meant to be somewhat general).

a-renzini · 2023-05-28T17:49:26Z

@a-renzini
The existence of two nearly identical public repositories (https://github.com/a-renzini/pygwb/, https://git.ligo.org/pygwb/pygwb) is a little bit confusing. Which one is the "real" one?
If you want to continue the development on GitLab but also want to be on GitHub, maybe you can consider mirroring the repository instead of creating a separate one?

Hello @Sbozzolo - that is exactly what I've done; the GitHub is a mirror of the GitLab! We are currently developing on GitLab.

It doesn't look like that the mirroring is working properly: the latest commit on GitLab is 36e6550eb5622d4456861b46c10c047163d394a5, but this commit does not exist on GitHub.
Also, if the repo on GitHub is just a mirror, I'd recommend pointing users to the GitLab repo in the readme (and maybe renaming the repo to pygwb-mirror, see, e.g., https://github.com/emacs-mirror/emacs). Your JOSS submission says that the link to the repo is the GitHub one, so maybe we should amend that too.

That is odd! I have just checked, and indeed the mirror failed a month ago. I will get that fixed asap.

I'll look into pointing/renaming as suggested. This does bring up a more top-level question though: during initial submission (which was a while ago now) we fixed the version for review to v1.0.0, which is the one associated to the ApJ paper. Shall we review this version for the JOSS paper, or shall we review the most up-to-date version? This will make a difference to the documentation. We don't have strong feelings either way; I don't know what the standard for JOSS papers is (whether the paper is linked to a specific version of the code, or whether it is meant to be somewhat general).

I have now fixed the mirroring. sorry about that.

a-renzini · 2023-05-28T18:21:47Z

@Sbozzolo I realise this wasn't obvious: the new documentation is produced as a pages job in github, and lives here:

https://a-renzini.github.io/pygwb/

once we are happy with it, I will merge it into gitlab and it will be produced as a gitlab pages job.

editorialbot · 2024-02-28T13:16:12Z

👋 @openjournals/aass-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#5064, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

dfm · 2024-02-28T13:20:18Z

@a-renzini — Looking good! I've opened one small PR then I think we should be good to go.

a-renzini · 2024-02-28T13:21:27Z

@dfm I saw the update astropy PR - should be merged.

dfm · 2024-02-28T13:22:12Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

dfm · 2024-02-28T13:22:22Z

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot · 2024-02-28T13:23:00Z

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
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 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
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 is OK
- 10.1007/s41114-017-0004-1 is OK
- 10.3390/galaxies10010034 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.102001 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/acd775 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-02-28T13:23:46Z

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

a-renzini · 2024-02-28T13:41:10Z

@dfm done :)

dfm · 2024-02-28T13:47:58Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-02-28T13:49:26Z

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

dfm · 2024-02-28T13:56:16Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-02-28T13:56:18Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-02-28T13:56:49Z

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
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 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
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 is OK
- 10.1007/s41114-017-0004-1 is OK
- 10.3390/galaxies10010034 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.102001 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/acd775 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-02-28T13:58:00Z

👋 @openjournals/aass-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#5065, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

dfm · 2024-02-28T14:00:04Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2024-02-28T14:00:07Z

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-02-28T14:06:58Z

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Renzini
  given-names: Arianna I.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4589-3987"
- family-names: Romero-Rodriguez
  given-names: Alba
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2275-4164"
- family-names: Talbot
  given-names: Colm
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2053-5582"
- family-names: Lalleman
  given-names: Max
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2254-010X"
- family-names: Kandhasamy
  given-names: Shivaraj
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4825-6764"
- family-names: Turbang
  given-names: Kevin
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9296-8603"
- family-names: Biscoveanu
  given-names: Sylvia
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7616-7366"
- family-names: Martinovic
  given-names: Katarina
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5299-7744"
- family-names: Meyers
  given-names: Patrick
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2689-0190"
- family-names: Tsukada
  given-names: Leo
- family-names: Janssens
  given-names: Kamiel
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8760-4429"
- family-names: Davis
  given-names: Derek
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5620-6751"
- family-names: Matas
  given-names: Andrew
- family-names: Charlton
  given-names: Philip
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4263-2706"
- family-names: Liu
  given-names: Guo-chin
- family-names: Dvorkin
  given-names: Irina
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2353-9194"
contact:
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Renzini
  given-names: Arianna I.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4589-3987"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10532825
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Renzini
    given-names: Arianna I.
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4589-3987"
  - family-names: Romero-Rodriguez
    given-names: Alba
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2275-4164"
  - family-names: Talbot
    given-names: Colm
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2053-5582"
  - family-names: Lalleman
    given-names: Max
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2254-010X"
  - family-names: Kandhasamy
    given-names: Shivaraj
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4825-6764"
  - family-names: Turbang
    given-names: Kevin
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9296-8603"
  - family-names: Biscoveanu
    given-names: Sylvia
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7616-7366"
  - family-names: Martinovic
    given-names: Katarina
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5299-7744"
  - family-names: Meyers
    given-names: Patrick
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2689-0190"
  - family-names: Tsukada
    given-names: Leo
  - family-names: Janssens
    given-names: Kamiel
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8760-4429"
  - family-names: Davis
    given-names: Derek
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5620-6751"
  - family-names: Matas
    given-names: Andrew
  - family-names: Charlton
    given-names: Philip
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4263-2706"
  - family-names: Liu
    given-names: Guo-chin
  - family-names: Dvorkin
    given-names: Irina
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2353-9194"
  date-published: 2024-02-28
  doi: 10.21105/joss.05454
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 94
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 5454
  title: "pygwb: a Python-based library for gravitational-wave
    background searches"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05454"
  volume: 9
title: "`pygwb`: a Python-based library for gravitational-wave
  background searches"

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

editorialbot · 2024-02-28T14:07:01Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2024-02-28T14:07:02Z

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.05454 joss-papers#5066
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05454
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

dfm · 2024-02-28T14:29:46Z

Many thanks to @Sbozzolo and @cmbiwer for reviewing and to @plaplant for editing! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you!!

@a-renzini — Your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS! ⚡🚀💥

editorialbot · 2024-02-28T14:29:51Z

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05454/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05454)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05454">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05454/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05454/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05454

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

editorialbot added AAS Papers being published together with a AAS submission Jupyter Notebook Python review TeX Track: 1 (AASS) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Space Sciences labels May 8, 2023

editorialbot assigned plaplant May 8, 2023

editorialbot mentioned this issue May 8, 2023

[PRE REVIEW]: pygwb: a Python-based library for gravitational-wave background searches #5333

Closed

Sbozzolo mentioned this issue May 9, 2023

[JOSS review] Improve documentation a-renzini/pygwb#1

Closed

14 tasks

dfm mentioned this issue Feb 28, 2024

Updating Astropy citation a-renzini/pygwb#13

Merged

dfm mentioned this issue Feb 28, 2024

One last (hopefully!) edit to bibliography a-renzini/pygwb#14

Merged

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Feb 28, 2024

dfm closed this as completed Feb 28, 2024

editorialbot mentioned this issue Jul 5, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: commensurability: a Python package for classifying astronomical orbits based on their toroid volume #6824

Closed

This was referenced Aug 21, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: ler : LVK (LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA collaboration) event (compact-binary mergers) rate calculator and simulator #7113

Closed

[PRE REVIEW]: GWPopulation: Hardware agnostic population inference for compact binaries and beyond #7147

Open

editorialbot mentioned this issue Nov 22, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: QhX: A Python package for periodicity detection in red noise #7516

Open

[REVIEW]: pygwb: a Python-based library for gravitational-wave background searches #5454

[REVIEW]: pygwb: a Python-based library for gravitational-wave background searches #5454

Comments

editorialbot commented May 8, 2023 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented May 8, 2023

editorialbot commented May 8, 2023

Sbozzolo commented May 9, 2023

editorialbot commented May 9, 2023

Sbozzolo commented May 9, 2023

Sbozzolo commented May 9, 2023

plaplant commented May 9, 2023

Sbozzolo commented May 9, 2023 • edited by plaplant Loading

Review checklist for @Sbozzolo

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

plaplant commented May 12, 2023

editorialbot commented May 12, 2023

cmbiwer commented May 17, 2023

cmbiwer commented May 17, 2023 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @cmbiwer

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

cmbiwer commented May 19, 2023

plaplant commented May 19, 2023

arfon commented May 22, 2023

Sbozzolo commented May 28, 2023

a-renzini commented May 28, 2023

Sbozzolo commented May 28, 2023 • edited Loading

a-renzini commented May 28, 2023

a-renzini commented May 28, 2023

a-renzini commented May 28, 2023

editorialbot commented Feb 28, 2024

dfm commented Feb 28, 2024

a-renzini commented Feb 28, 2024

dfm commented Feb 28, 2024

dfm commented Feb 28, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 28, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 28, 2024

a-renzini commented Feb 28, 2024

dfm commented Feb 28, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 28, 2024

dfm commented Feb 28, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 28, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 28, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 28, 2024

dfm commented Feb 28, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 28, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 28, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 28, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 28, 2024

dfm commented Feb 28, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 28, 2024

[REVIEW]: `pygwb`: a Python-based library for gravitational-wave background searches #5454

[REVIEW]: `pygwb`: a Python-based library for gravitational-wave background searches #5454

editorialbot commented May 8, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Sbozzolo commented May 9, 2023 •

edited by plaplant

Loading

cmbiwer commented May 17, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Sbozzolo commented May 28, 2023 •

edited

Loading