[REVIEW]: hp3D: A Scalable MPI/OpenMP hp-Adaptive Finite Element Software Library for Complex Multiphysics Applications #5946

editorialbot · 2023-10-13T15:54:47Z

Submitting author: @stefanhenneking (Stefan Henneking)
Repository: https://github.com/Oden-EAG/hp3d
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-paper
Version: v1.0
Editor: @jedbrown
Reviewers: @peterrum, @likask
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10763375

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/79ef3f54fa7899384b8ffa5a94637189"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/79ef3f54fa7899384b8ffa5a94637189/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/79ef3f54fa7899384b8ffa5a94637189/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/79ef3f54fa7899384b8ffa5a94637189)

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

@peterrum & @likask, 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 @jedbrown 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 @peterrum

📝 Checklist for @likask

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

editorialbot · 2023-10-13T15:54:50Z

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 · 2023-10-13T15:54:53Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.51 s (1474.1 files/s, 363038.3 lines/s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                      files          blank        comment           code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fortran 90                      481           1349          47417          68317
Fortran 77                      153            341          19916          23983
TeX                              22           1227           3511           9019
Python                            4             11             92           1686
make                             54            306            143           1430
Bourne Shell                     14            161            426            653
C                                 1            177            227            537
Perl                              2            144            292            500
Bourne Again Shell               11            156           1079            372
Markdown                          2             31              0            164
Pascal                            1              2              0             44
C/C++ Header                      1              2              0             10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            746           3907          73103         106715
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot · 2023-10-13T15:54:56Z

Wordcount for paper.md is 767

editorialbot · 2023-10-13T15:55:25Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.camwa.2021.01.006 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2020.03.024 is OK
- 10.26153/tsw/13716 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-031-20432-6_22 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2023.07.006 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2309.00726 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2207.12211 is OK
- 10.1201/9781420011692 is OK
- 10.1201/9781420011685 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2021.01.017 is OK
- 10.1137/s0895479899358194 is OK
- 10.1016/j.parco.2007.12.001 is OK
- 10.1137/s1064827595287997 is OK
- 10.1137/1.9781611977738 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-540-78319-0_3 is OK
- 10.1016/0045-7825(89)90129-1 is OK
- 10.1016/0045-7825(89)90130-8 is OK
- 10.1016/0045-7825(89)90131-X is OK
- 10.1002/9781119176817.ecm2105 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cma.2017.07.012 is OK
- 10.1145/1268776.1268779 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2020.06.009 is OK
- 10.1109/5992.988653 is OK
- 10.1016/b978-012387582-2/50038-1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2015.04.027 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2017.06.044 is OK
- 10.26153/tsw/2153 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2017.07.051 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcpx.2019.100002 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-10-13T15:56:20Z

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

jedbrown · 2023-10-13T15:59:31Z

Hi, @peterrum @likask 👋 Welcome to JOSS and thanks for agreeing to review! The comments from @editorialbot above outline the review process, which takes place in this thread (possibly with issues filed in the hp3D repository). I'll be watching this thread if you have any questions.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention this issue so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within a month or two. Please let me know if you require some more time. We can also use editorialbot to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@jedbrown) if you have any questions/concerns.

peterrum · 2023-10-14T16:36:23Z

Review checklist for @peterrum

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/Oden-EAG/hp3d?
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 (@stefanhenneking) 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?

likask · 2023-10-18T05:58:11Z

Review checklist for @likask

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/Oden-EAG/hp3d?
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 (@stefanhenneking) 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?

peterrum · 2023-10-28T11:04:34Z

@stefanhenneking I went through the checklist and read the paper.

I didn't have any problems with installation after I have installed flex, bison, and libx11-dev; however, there are a bunch of warnings. I have run /problems/POISSON/GALERKIN/; it runs and solves the system; however, I had problems visualizing the output. The internal visualization tool graphb seems to be a bit old fashion; when selection Paraview, it apparently writes a file (Dumping to Paraview...) but I cannot find it. Could the authors point out where the output is (I have also tries the environment variable PARAVIEW_DIR as stated in the documentation). May I ask you to print the path to screen?

The text of the manuscript is overall clear and well written. I only have a few points:

three-dimensional [...] problems

I found the limitation to 3D a bit irritating when reading the text. In the documentation, it says there is a 2D version, however, it is not public. Could you add the same comment in the manuscript. I hope both codes share functionalities?

runs efficiently

Do you have any numbers or papers that verify this claim?

state-of-the-art supercomputers.

I have tried the code on CPU. Is it also working on GPUs? If not, could you be more precise by stating on various CPU-based compute architectures.

Additionally, the ℎp3D FE code sets itself apart from other advanced FE libraries (e.g., MFEM (Anderson et al., 2021) or deal.II (Bangerth et al., 2007)) by focusing on ℎ𝑝-adaptive solutions

I would suggest to relax this statement about other libraries. For instance, deal.II supports parallel matrix-based and matrix-free hp-adaptivity (with threading via TBB and MPI; see Bangerth, Kayser-Herold 2009 and Fehling, Bangerth 2023). "anisotropic refinement" and additional ways to apply constrains seems to be features that sets hp3D apart.

likask · 2023-10-28T12:40:22Z

@stefanhenneking I have yet to test the code; however, I was able to install the code. The process will be much easier if you would add HP3D to the package manager, e.g. spack.pm —an easy job to do, which will make life easier.

likask · 2023-10-28T13:36:04Z

@peterrum I guessed where code dump paraview files, see folder hp3d/trunk/problems/POISSON/outputs/paraview

peterrum · 2023-10-28T16:21:08Z

@likask Thanks! Indeed! This is not the place one would start to look^^

stefanhenneking · 2023-11-02T03:52:33Z

@peterrum @likask Thank you both very much for agreeing to review our submission and for your feedback on the paper and the code. We really appreciate it!

@peterrum thanks for pointing out the issue with the ParaView path. I'll add the output path to be printed on the screen by default. As you intuited correctly, PARAVIEW_DIR is the relative path to the output directory but if you ran one of the examples this path is set at runtime from the program arguments given in run.sh (or if not given, it uses the default argument set in set_environment of the corresponding problem implementation). I'll try to clarify that point or make it more intuitive with the next update of the user manual as well.

Yes, we do have a 2D version that shares most of the functionality with the 3D version. So far the 2D version hasn't been made public because it'd need some refactoring and additional documentation first. We would like to either make that 2D version public in the future or perhaps extend the 3D version to support 2D computations directly. I will add a comment along those lines in the paper.

Currently, only CPU-based architectures are supported. Thanks for bringing that up, I will change the sentence in the paper accordingly. The efficiency of the code is documented for fairly large problems (~O(10^9) dofs) in a few places - two papers are cited a bit further down in the paper in the "Statement of need" section.

I'll also relax the statement about other libraries in the way you suggested.

@likask I'm glad to hear you were able to install the library. Thank you for your suggestion to add hp3D to spack. I don't have any prior experience with that but I'll look into adding that to simplify installing hp3D and its dependencies.

stefanhenneking · 2023-11-02T04:18:31Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2023-11-02T04:20:29Z

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

stefanhenneking · 2023-11-02T04:27:30Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2023-11-02T04:29:14Z

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

stefanhenneking · 2023-11-06T19:14:04Z

@likask @peterrum Thank you both again very much for reviewing our submission.

@jedbrown Thank you very much as well for serving as the editor for our submission (and also for encouraging us to submit to JOSS in the first place). What are the next steps?

jedbrown · 2023-11-12T15:40:06Z

Hi, thanks for your work here. The paper reads well. I have two suggestions:

I would strongly encourage enabling continuous integration (GitHub Actions is pretty easy) so that at least some test are run automatically in pull requests. This has the advantage of creating a tested workflow from a base system to working build. Our reviewers here have a lot of experience with building/linking, but many other users and potential contributors will not and it's easy for documentation to miss necessary steps when it isn't tested.
The main point of friction feels like installation. The README doesn't currently document versions. Ideally, apt install petsc-dev (and a few more packages, or a Docker image with the latest release) would be enough for the build to work out of the box. If PETSC_DIR and PETSC_ARCH are set, the build should be able to use them. It looks like a regular build of PETSc (not installed to a prefix) will not work since it's currently hard-coded that there must be only one include path. (This restriction is especially clumsy if one is hacking on PETSc while testing it from hp3D.) You could probably make an m_options that gets all its information from pkg-config and even make that the default, which should make it possible to build in many environments without editing a file. $PETSC_DIR/share/petsc/Makefile.user shows how to get everything from pkg-config while staying symmetric with respect to other packages.

stefanhenneking · 2023-11-15T01:15:32Z

Thanks for your suggestions, @jedbrown. I completely agree that both CI and simplifying installation are important missing pieces. I will try to work on it as soon as possible and link the corresponding Issues / PRs to this thread here.

editorialbot · 2024-03-02T20:12:23Z

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

stefanhenneking · 2024-03-02T20:44:24Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-03-02T20:45:41Z

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

stefanhenneking · 2024-03-02T21:05:54Z

@jedbrown

I updated the paper as you suggested, tagged the current release version (tagged v1.0 at https://github.com/Oden-EAG/hp3d/releases/tag/v1.0), and archived it on Zenodo.

The Zenodo DOI for the hp3D release v1.0 is 10.5281/zenodo.10763375.

The all-versions DOI is 10.5281/zenodo.10763374.

I also added the Zenodo archive with DOI as a reference to the paper.

jedbrown · 2024-03-04T03:25:48Z

@editorialbot set v1.0 as version

editorialbot · 2024-03-04T03:25:50Z

Done! version is now v1.0

jedbrown · 2024-03-04T03:26:12Z

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.10763375 as archive

editorialbot · 2024-03-04T03:26:14Z

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.10763375

jedbrown · 2024-03-04T03:27:39Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-03-04T03:27:41Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-03-04T03:28:19Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.camwa.2021.01.006 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2020.03.024 is OK
- 10.26153/tsw/13716 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-031-20432-6_22 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2023.07.006 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2309.00726 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10763375 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2207.12211 is OK
- 10.1201/9781420011692 is OK
- 10.1201/9781420011685 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2021.01.017 is OK
- 10.1137/s0895479899358194 is OK
- 10.1016/j.parco.2007.12.001 is OK
- 10.1137/s1064827595287997 is OK
- 10.2172/2205494 is OK
- 10.1137/1.9781611977738 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-540-78319-0_3 is OK
- 10.1016/0045-7825(89)90129-1 is OK
- 10.1016/0045-7825(89)90130-8 is OK
- 10.1016/0045-7825(89)90131-X is OK
- 10.1002/9781119176817.ecm2105 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cma.2017.07.012 is OK
- 10.1145/1268776.1268779 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2020.06.009 is OK
- 10.1109/5992.988653 is OK
- 10.1016/b978-012387582-2/50038-1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2015.04.027 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2017.06.044 is OK
- 10.26153/tsw/2153 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2017.07.051 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcpx.2019.100002 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-03-04T03:29:04Z

👋 @openjournals/pe-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#5086, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

kyleniemeyer · 2024-03-04T15:36:21Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2024-03-04T15:36:23Z

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

editorialbot · 2024-03-04T15:43:26Z

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:
- family-names: Henneking
  given-names: Stefan
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2177-8519"
- family-names: Petrides
  given-names: Socratis
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1284-5495"
- family-names: Fuentes
  given-names: Federico
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4039-082X"
- family-names: Badger
  given-names: Jacob
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6482-105X"
- family-names: Demkowicz
  given-names: Leszek
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7839-8037"
contact:
- family-names: Henneking
  given-names: Stefan
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2177-8519"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10763375
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Henneking
    given-names: Stefan
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2177-8519"
  - family-names: Petrides
    given-names: Socratis
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1284-5495"
  - family-names: Fuentes
    given-names: Federico
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4039-082X"
  - family-names: Badger
    given-names: Jacob
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6482-105X"
  - family-names: Demkowicz
    given-names: Leszek
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7839-8037"
  date-published: 2024-03-04
  doi: 10.21105/joss.05946
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 95
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 5946
  title: "hp\\\\mathrm{3D}: A Scalable MPI/OpenMP hp-Adaptive Finite
    Element Software Library for Complex Multiphysics Applications"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05946"
  volume: 9
title: "$hp\\mathrm{3D}$: A Scalable MPI/OpenMP $hp$-Adaptive Finite
  Element Software Library for Complex Multiphysics Applications"

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 · 2024-03-04T15:43:31Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2024-03-04T15:43:32Z

🚨🚨🚨 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.05946 joss-papers#5089
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05946
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

kyleniemeyer · 2024-03-04T15:46:13Z

Congratulations @stefanhenneking on your article's publication in JOSS!

Many thanks to @peterrum and @likask for reviewing this, and @jedbrown for editing.

editorialbot · 2024-03-04T15:46:14Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.05946/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05946)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05946">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05946/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05946/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05946

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

stefanhenneking · 2024-03-05T01:12:21Z

Thank you again @peterrum and @likask for reviewing our code, and @jedbrown for editing and handling our submission!

editorialbot added Perl review Shell TeX Track: 3 (PE) Physics and Engineering labels Oct 13, 2023

editorialbot assigned jedbrown Oct 13, 2023

editorialbot mentioned this issue Oct 13, 2023

[PRE REVIEW]: hp3D: A Scalable MPI/OpenMP hp-Adaptive Finite Element Software Library for Complex Multiphysics Applications #5936

Closed

stefanhenneking mentioned this issue Nov 2, 2023

Minor: printing paraview output path Oden-EAG/hp3d#156

Merged

This was referenced Nov 15, 2023

Continuous Integration Oden-EAG/hp3d#155

Closed

Simplify installation of hp3D Oden-EAG/hp3d#158

Closed

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Mar 4, 2024

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Mar 4, 2024

kyleniemeyer closed this as completed Mar 4, 2024

This was referenced Jul 15, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: A Python Library for Pre- and Post-Processing of DAMASK Simulations #6986

Closed

[PRE REVIEW]: solids4foam-v2.1: A toolbox for performing solid mechanics and fluid-solid interaction simulations in OpenFOAM #6989

Closed

editorialbot mentioned this issue Aug 14, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: kifmm-rs: A Kernel Independent Fast Multipole Framework in Rust #7100

Closed

editorialbot mentioned this issue Oct 22, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: PeriDEM - High-fidelity modeling of granular media consisting of deformable complex-shaped particles #7392

Closed

editorialbot mentioned this issue Nov 7, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: Underworld3: Mathematically Self-Describing Modelling in Python for Desktop, HPC and Cloud #7436

Open

editorialbot mentioned this issue Dec 11, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: volesti: A C++ library for sampling and volume computation on convex bodies #7579

Open

[REVIEW]: hp3D: A Scalable MPI/OpenMP hp-Adaptive Finite Element Software Library for Complex Multiphysics Applications #5946

[REVIEW]: hp3D: A Scalable MPI/OpenMP hp-Adaptive Finite Element Software Library for Complex Multiphysics Applications #5946

Comments

editorialbot commented Oct 13, 2023 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Oct 13, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 13, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 13, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 13, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 13, 2023

jedbrown commented Oct 13, 2023

peterrum commented Oct 14, 2023 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @peterrum

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

likask commented Oct 18, 2023 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @likask

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

peterrum commented Oct 28, 2023

likask commented Oct 28, 2023 • edited Loading

likask commented Oct 28, 2023

peterrum commented Oct 28, 2023

stefanhenneking commented Nov 2, 2023

stefanhenneking commented Nov 2, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 2, 2023

stefanhenneking commented Nov 2, 2023

editorialbot commented Nov 2, 2023

stefanhenneking commented Nov 6, 2023

jedbrown commented Nov 12, 2023

stefanhenneking commented Nov 15, 2023

editorialbot commented Mar 2, 2024

stefanhenneking commented Mar 2, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 2, 2024

stefanhenneking commented Mar 2, 2024

jedbrown commented Mar 4, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 4, 2024

jedbrown commented Mar 4, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 4, 2024

jedbrown commented Mar 4, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 4, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 4, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 4, 2024

kyleniemeyer commented Mar 4, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 4, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 4, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 4, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 4, 2024

kyleniemeyer commented Mar 4, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 4, 2024

stefanhenneking commented Mar 5, 2024

editorialbot commented Oct 13, 2023 •

edited

Loading

peterrum commented Oct 14, 2023 •

edited

Loading

likask commented Oct 18, 2023 •

edited

Loading

likask commented Oct 28, 2023 •

edited

Loading