[PRE REVIEW]: Mayawaves: Python Library for Interacting with the Einstein Toolkit and the MAYA Catalog

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @deborahferguson (Deborah Ferguson)
Repository: https://github.com/MayaWaves/mayawaves
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper
Version: 2023.8
Editor: @eloisabentivegna
Reviewers: @cjoana, @Sbozzolo
Managing EiC: Dan Foreman-Mackey

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4b810e4ab4c7f51b2a1cf020bd3c27f6"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4b810e4ab4c7f51b2a1cf020bd3c27f6/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4b810e4ab4c7f51b2a1cf020bd3c27f6/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4b810e4ab4c7f51b2a1cf020bd3c27f6)

Author instructions

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

@deborahferguson if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

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=1.58 s (97.0 files/s, 37227.3 lines/s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                      files          blank        comment           code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                           26           3741           3104          14128
JavaScript                       14           2404           2467           9203
HTML                             15           2100             42           7725
SVG                               1              0              0           2671
Perl                              6            600            649           2508
JSON                              2              0              0           1064
Bourne Again Shell               44            230            366            932
CSS                               4            181             33            726
INI                              23             23              0            699
TeX                               1             37              0            481
Jupyter Notebook                  6              0           2059            178
Markdown                          2             24              0             99
TOML                              1              2              0             42
reStructuredText                  5             29             41             40
DOS Batch                         1              8              1             26
YAML                              1              1              4             18
make                              1              4              7              9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            153           9384           8773          40549
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1088/1361-6382/aa7929 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.023003 is OK
- 10.1038/s41550-021-01568-w is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001 is OK
- 10.1093/ptep/ptaa120 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevX.11.021053 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031040 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f5 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.123012 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.151101 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.044028 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.044007 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.024058 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.044006 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.122004 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.104041 is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/33/20/204001 is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/29/11/115001 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.084020 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.131101 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.024040 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.104005 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.064032 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.081501 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.104018 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.084010 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.101503 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.104022 is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/28/19/195015 is OK
- 10.1201/b12985 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03099 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1088/0264-9381/24/12/s04 may be a valid DOI for title: Unequal Mass Binary Black Hole Plunges and Gravitational Recoil

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 925

[editorialbot]

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

[dfm]

@deborahferguson — Thanks for your submission! All of the best editors for this manuscript are currently working at full capacity so I'm going to waitlist your submission for now, but I expect we will be able to assign an editor within about 2 weeks. Thanks for your patience!

[eloisabentivegna]

@dfm: I am available to edit (finalizing a review right now).

[dfm]

@editorialbot assign @eloisabentivegna as editor

That would be great - thank you @eloisabentivegna!!

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @eloisabentivegna is now the editor

[eloisabentivegna]

@Sbozzolo, @rhaas80: this submission appears to be very close to your interests, and your feedback would be much appreciated. Would you be available to review?

[rhaas80]

possibly, but I would be somewhat conflicted I think since Deborah just started as a postdoc in Helvi's group at NCSA (and is co-funded by the ET grant at NCSA) and I was involved in the hiring process. So I can comment,but not much else.

[Sbozzolo]

Yes, I can review this submission!

[eloisabentivegna]

possibly, but I would be somewhat conflicted I think since Deborah just started as a postdoc in Helvi's group at NCSA (and is co-funded by the ET grant at NCSA) and I was involved in the hiring process. So I can comment,but not much else.

@rhaas80, thanks for disclosing the conflict. I agree that it would be best for you not to be involved with the review itself. I am still interested in your comments, though. I will wait until the reviewers express their recommendations and then mention you in the review issue to solicit your input. Is this OK?

[eloisabentivegna]

Yes, I can review this submission!

Thanks, @Sbozzolo.

[eloisabentivegna]

@barrywardell, you have also worked on analysis packages for the ET. Would you be available to review this submission?

[deborahferguson]

Hi all, I wanted to just check the status of this and see if there's anything I need to do right now for this review process. Thanks!

[eloisabentivegna]

Thanks @deborahferguson. There's nothing you have to do, but I'd appreciate your suggestions regarding suitable reviewers.

[deborahferguson]

Sure thing! KAClough would be a good option if she has the time.

[eloisabentivegna]

@KAClough, are you available to review this submission?

[barrywardell]

@barrywardell, you have also worked on analysis packages for the ET. Would you be available to review this submission?

In principle I would be happy to do the review, but unfortunately I'm right in the middle of a busy teaching semester so I don't foresee having any time for at least another ~6 weeks. If you're still looking for a reviewer at that point please let me know.

[KAClough]

Hello! Sorry I am similar to Barry in that I am a bit buried under teaching this term, but I am asking round in the GRChombo team as I am sure one of our PhDs or postdocs would be happy to have a look at this nice tool :-)

[eloisabentivegna]

@barrywardell, @KAClough, thanks for letting us know.

Any further suggestion is welcome! I will continue my own search.

[KAClough]

Hello - if you are still looking for someone @cjoana has kindly said he can help.

[cjoana]

Hi all, yes, I am available and I would be happy to review this submission.

[eloisabentivegna]

Great, thanks @cjoana and @KAClough! I will start the review right away. If you have any questions on the process, please do ask.

[eloisabentivegna]

@editorialbot add @cjoana as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@cjoana added to the reviewers list!

[eloisabentivegna]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6032.

[Sbozzolo]

Hey @eloisabentivegna, I think I was not added as a reviewer!

[eloisabentivegna]

@editorialbot add @Sbozzolo as reviewer

You're right, @Sbozzolo! Apologies.

[editorialbot]

@Sbozzolo added to the reviewers list!