[PRE REVIEW]: GECo: A collection of solvers for the self-gravitating Vlasov equations

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @alogg (Anders Logg)
Repository: https://github.com/anderslogg/geco
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper-joss-2023
Version: 1.0.0
Editor: @dfm
Reviewers: @michellegurevich, @pmocz
Managing EiC: Dan Foreman-Mackey

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b430d2ee087c520ad1b597c6e1fe5927"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b430d2ee087c520ad1b597c6e1fe5927/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b430d2ee087c520ad1b597c6e1fe5927/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b430d2ee087c520ad1b597c6e1fe5927)

Author instructions

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

@alogg 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=0.06 s (1462.5 files/s, 133442.2 lines/s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                      files          blank        comment           code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                           47           1332           1268           3350
C/C++ Header                     22            326            295            994
Markdown                          5             57              0            216
Jupyter Notebook                  2              0            306             84
Bourne Shell                      7             25             35             78
TeX                               1              6              0             59
Bourne Again Shell                5             14             14             39
reStructuredText                  1             11              0             25
Dockerfile                        1              8              9             20
GLSL                              1              0              1              2
make                              1              0              0              2
XML                               1              0              0              1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                             94           1779           1928           4870
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-642-23099-8 is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/33/15/155008 is OK
- 10.12942/lrr-2011-4 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.124044 is OK
- 10.1137/10078356X is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 908

[editorialbot]

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

[dfm]

@alogg — Thanks for your submission! All the suitable JOSS editors are currently working at capacity so I'm going to "waitlist" this review until an editor with the relevant expertise is available to take it on. Thanks for your patience!

[elleryames]

Thanks for the note @dfm and thanks to JOSS for considering our contribution. A few suitable reviewers are (github handles without @ ): KAClough, sbozzolo, shreyasbapat, and apoudel2014.

[dfm]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

@elleryames, @alogg — Thanks for your patience. I now have capacity to edit your submission so I'll take it from here. I'll start reaching out to reviewers now, and then once we have 2 assigned, we'll get the main review started in a new thread.

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @dfm is now the editor

[dfm]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

GRChombo: An adaptable numerical relativity code for fundamental physics
Submitting author: @kaclough
Handling editor: @rkurchin (Active)
Reviewers: @sbozzolo, @rashti-alireza
Similarity score: 0.8277

GeophysicalFlows.jl: Solvers for geophysical fluid dynamics problems in periodic domains on CPUs & GPUs
Submitting author: @navidcy
Handling editor: @pdebuyl (Active)
Reviewers: @ranocha, @eviatarbach
Similarity score: 0.8273

UWGeodynamics: A teaching and research tool for numerical geodynamic modelling
Submitting author: @rbeucher
Handling editor: @lheagy (Retired)
Reviewers: @flohorovicic
Similarity score: 0.8150

ESVM: an open-source finite volume Electrostatic Vlasov-Maxwell code
Submitting author: @michaeltouati
Handling editor: @danielskatz (Active)
Reviewers: @tclune, @TomGoffrey, @rouson
Similarity score: 0.8132

CASTRO: A Massively Parallel Compressible Astrophysics Simulation Code
Submitting author: @zingale
Handling editor: @eloisabentivegna (Active)
Reviewers: @kegiljarhus, @bonh, @joshia5
Similarity score: 0.8111

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[dfm]

@elleryames, @alogg — In the meantime it looks like most of the references in the compiled document are not getting resolved. Can you check your BibTeX and try to work out what's going on? There are some methods outlined on the JOSS docs page to check the compilation. Thanks!

[anderslogg]

@dfm We have followed the instructions on the web page very carefully but still the figure references are broken.

The instructions on the web page look like this:

![Caption for example figure.\label{fig:example}](figure.png)
and referenced from text using \autoref{fig:example}.

And we have the following in our paper:

\autoref{fig:Solution}

![Torus spatial density on quarter plane computational domain \label{fig:Solution}](./figures/density_computational_domain.png)

We have also built the document using the Docker instructions as listed in the instruction but the references break for some reason.

[dfm]

@anderslogg — I've opened a PR which fixes the references, but I think you'll also want to write somewhat more descriptive captions :D

[anderslogg]

@dfm Thanks! Will fix. So it was just a matter of separating the figures with newlines?

[dfm]

Great! Yes, that seems to have been sufficient.

[anderslogg]

@dfm Merged pull request and fixed captions now.

[dfm]

@editorialbot add @michellegurevich as reviewer

🎉 Thanks to @michellegurevich for agreeing to act as a reviewer for this submission! As soon as we have a second reviewer, I'll get the main review thread started.

[editorialbot]

@michellegurevich added to the reviewers list!

[dfm]

@editorialbot add @pmocz as reviewer

🎉 Thanks @pmocz for agreeing to be our second reviewer!

Before I start the review thread, I want to confirm: @anderslogg is @alogg also your GitHub username? If so, which do you prefer, and could you update your JOSS profile page if you'd like @anderslogg to be the one we use?

[editorialbot]

@pmocz added to the reviewers list!

[anderslogg]

@dfm Yes that's an old account. Profile updated with @anderslogg (new main account) now.

[dfm]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #5979.