[REVIEW]: HW2D: A reference implementation of the Hasegawa-Wakatani model for plasma turbulence in fusion reactors #5959

editorialbot · 2023-10-18T22:49:12Z

Submitting author: @the-rccg (Robin Greif)
Repository: https://github.com/the-rccg/hw2d
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main
Version: 1.0.0
Editor: @kyleniemeyer
Reviewers: @archermarx, @Uddiptaatwork
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10365012

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f5334c75275080b267d40b0429d711a2"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f5334c75275080b267d40b0429d711a2/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f5334c75275080b267d40b0429d711a2/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f5334c75275080b267d40b0429d711a2)

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

@archermarx & @Uddiptaatwork, 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 @kyleniemeyer 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 @archermarx

📝 Checklist for @Uddiptaatwork

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

editorialbot · 2023-10-18T22:49:14Z

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 · 2023-10-18T22:49:15Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.04 s (1046.4 files/s, 93583.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          35            508            691           1900
Markdown                         2            106              0            251
YAML                             5             24             19            149
TOML                             1             16              0            147
TeX                              1              8              0            116
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            44            662            710           2563
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot · 2023-10-18T22:49:17Z

Wordcount for paper.md is 1095

editorialbot · 2023-10-18T22:49:17Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1063/1.871116 is OK
- 10.1006/jcph.1997.5697 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-6587/aaa373 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-6587/ace993 is OK
- 10.1063/1.5122865 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-6587/abad02 is OK
- 10.1063/1.871566 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-10-18T22:50:34Z

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

kyleniemeyer · 2023-10-18T22:51:13Z

👋 @the-rccg @archermarx @Uddiptaatwork the review will take place here

archermarx · 2023-10-19T15:24:11Z

Review checklist for @archermarx

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/the-rccg/hw2d?
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 (@the-rccg) 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?

Uddiptaatwork · 2023-10-23T05:20:38Z

Review checklist for @Uddiptaatwork

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/the-rccg/hw2d?
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 (@the-rccg) 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?

archermarx · 2023-10-31T18:05:35Z

I have completed most of my review, except for actually running the software. Overall, I think this is a very nice contribution. I have two main comments:

You do a good job of documenting the available methods, but you are missing an example or two to demonstrate how to use the code. I would include a small tutorial in the documentation showing how to use the code and showing off a few configurable options.
On a similar point, you mention in the installation instructions that you can use accelerators like numba. It would be good to have a list of which ones are supported by the code.

I will try and run the software tomorrow.

the-rccg · 2023-11-10T17:47:23Z

@archermarx I added an example for the CLI interface with an explanation for the kwargs used. There is also an additional paragraph on the accelerators that clearly labels available accelerators (currently only Numba). Others should be ready soon, and will be added to the readme and installation. For a full workflow example, a more thorough framework would be needed like a Google Colab Notebook, which is planned for the future.

archermarx · 2023-11-10T18:10:32Z

Great! I've now run the code and it mostly works. However, I encounter an error using the following input

python3 -m hw2d --step_size=0.025 --end_time=100 --grid_pts=128 --c1=1.0 --k0=0.15 --N=3 --nu=5.0e-08 --snaps=1 --buffer_size=100 --output_path="test.h5" --movie=1 --min_fps=10 --speed=5 --debug=0

The code runs to completion and generates a (very nice looking) movie. However, in the "Plotting properties" step, I get this error:

100%|███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████| 41/41 [00:16<00:00,  2.46it/s]
Plotting properties...███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▉  | 40/41 [00:16<00:00,  2.53it/s]
/home/marksta/.local/lib/python3.10/site-packages/numpy/core/_methods.py:206: RuntimeWarning: Degrees of freedom <= 0 for slice
  ret = _var(a, axis=axis, dtype=dtype, out=out, ddof=ddof,
/home/marksta/.local/lib/python3.10/site-packages/numpy/core/_methods.py:163: RuntimeWarning: invalid value encountered in divide
  arrmean = um.true_divide(arrmean, div, out=arrmean,
/home/marksta/.local/lib/python3.10/site-packages/numpy/core/_methods.py:198: RuntimeWarning: invalid value encountered in divide
  ret = ret.dtype.type(ret / rcount)
/home/marksta/.local/lib/python3.10/site-packages/numpy/core/fromnumeric.py:3504: RuntimeWarning: Mean of empty slice.
  return _methods._mean(a, axis=axis, dtype=dtype,
/home/marksta/.local/lib/python3.10/site-packages/numpy/core/_methods.py:129: RuntimeWarning: invalid value encountered in divide
  ret = ret.dtype.type(ret / rcount)
test_enstrophy-energy-kinetic_energy-thermal_energy.jpg
202it [02:02,  1.65it/s]

And no image is produced.

the-rccg · 2023-11-10T18:54:38Z

@archermarx I updated the error handling to give graceful explanations and handling of this case. The issue was that end_time=100 is not inside of the saturated turbulent phase, so all statistical properties would be meaningless for the turbulent system. It now provides a warning and includes a picture of the non-converged data.
The start of the different phases are given in the section subtitled "Dynamics of the different phases" in the readme.

archermarx · 2023-11-10T18:56:43Z

Excellent! In that case, I think I can mark my review as completed. Very cool work!

the-rccg · 2023-11-10T18:59:10Z

@archermarx Thank you very much for your time and effort in finding these issues and reviewing the submission! Really appreciate it.

Uddiptaatwork · 2023-11-25T13:30:07Z

I have now concluded my review. The code works great and the tests ran smoothly without any errors.
Here is one point that the author might consider:

The documentation could use a home/introduction page very similar to the github-repo README. It would help new users accessing the code directly via the documentation page to get an overview of what it entails.

The documentation pertaining to the API is very well done and appears highly useful for any new user of the code. The article is succinct with analytical descriptions and citations where necessary.

Overall, I would like to congratulate the author for a very well written code and article.
I can mark my review as completed.

kyleniemeyer · 2023-11-30T16:19:16Z

Thank you, @Uddiptaatwork.

@the-rccg, is that suggestion on a home page for the documentation something you could address?

the-rccg · 2023-12-07T23:39:42Z

@Uddiptaatwork Thank you very much for the review. I have added a dynamic link for the top-level that includes the README.md dynamically in documentation creation upon commit. pdoc3 currently has some issues with latex formulas in include and does no support for GitHub Flavored Markdown (GFM), therefore some things are not properly displayed at this time. I have opened an issue with pdoc3 and will try to get the support implemented myself to make sure it displays properly.
For now, it's a crude approximation of the readme and should be fixed soon with progress on the pdoc3.

Preview of the ReadMe in the docs: https://the-rccg.github.io/hw2d/index.html

kyleniemeyer · 2023-12-08T16:52:19Z

@the-rccg in the past, I think I converted my Markdown README to ReST and then used that for the docs generation to avoid some issues like that, but may have been with Sphinx. This looks like a good solution, though

the-rccg · 2023-12-11T19:16:16Z

@kyleniemeyer After a lot of back and forth, I have now moved from pdoc3 to pdoc. Images and equations now work and all information is pulled dynamically from the readme.

kyleniemeyer · 2023-12-12T15:17:54Z

That looks great! At this point, I think the review is complete.

kyleniemeyer · 2023-12-12T15:17:57Z

kyleniemeyer · 2023-12-12T15:18:23Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2023-12-12T17:10:51Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1063/1.871116 is OK
- 10.1006/jcph.1997.5697 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-6587/aaa373 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-6587/ace993 is OK
- 10.1063/1.5122865 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.50.682 is OK
- 10.1063/1.4796190 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-6587/abad02 is OK
- 10.1063/1.871566 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-12-12T17:11:40Z

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

kyleniemeyer · 2023-12-12T17:14:53Z

OK, all looks great @the-rccg!

kyleniemeyer · 2023-12-12T17:14:56Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2023-12-12T17:14:58Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2023-12-12T17:15:00Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1063/1.871116 is OK
- 10.1006/jcph.1997.5697 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-6587/aaa373 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-6587/ace993 is OK
- 10.1063/1.5122865 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.50.682 is OK
- 10.1063/1.4796190 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-6587/abad02 is OK
- 10.1063/1.871566 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-12-12T17:15:43Z

The paper's PDF and metadata files generation produced some warnings that could prevent the final paper from being published. Please fix them before the end of the review process.

athrm{d}^2 x \space \left(n \partial_y \
                   ^
unexpected control sequence \space
expecting "%", "\\label", "\\tag", "\\nonumber" or whitespace

athrm{d}^2 x \space \left(n - \phi\right
                   ^
unexpected control sequence \space
expecting "%", "\\label", "\\tag", "\\nonumber" or whitespace

            = \small \frac{1}{2} \normal
                   ^
unexpected control sequence \small
expecting "%", "\\label", "\\tag", "\\nonumber" or whitespace

            = \small \frac{1}{2} \normal
                   ^
unexpected control sequence \small
expecting "%", "\\label", "\\tag", "\\nonumber" or whitespace

mathrm{d} k_y \space \Gamma^n \small (k_
                   ^
unexpected control sequence \space
expecting "%", "\\label", "\\tag", "\\nonumber" or whitespace

  \delta \small (k_y)  \normalsize \spac
              ^
unexpected control sequence \small
expecting "%", "\\label", "\\tag", "\\nonumber" or whitespace

  E^N  \small (k_y)  \normalsize \space 
            ^
unexpected control sequence \small
expecting "%", "\\label", "\\tag", "\\nonumber" or whitespace

  E^V  \small (k_y)  \normalsize \space 
            ^
unexpected control sequence \small
expecting "%", "\\label", "\\tag", "\\nonumber" or whitespace

 \mathrm{d}^2 x \space (n \mathfrak{D^n}
                   ^
unexpected control sequence \space
expecting "%", "\\label", "\\tag", "\\nonumber" or whitespace

 \mathrm{d}^2 x \space (n - \Omega)(\mat
                   ^
unexpected control sequence \space
expecting "%", "\\label", "\\tag", "\\nonumber" or whitespace

 \mathfrak{D}^n \small (x,y) \normalsize
                   ^
unexpected control sequence \small
expecting "%", "\\label", "\\tag", "\\nonumber" or whitespace

editorialbot · 2023-12-12T17:16:12Z

👋 @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#4832, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

the-rccg · 2023-12-12T17:31:07Z

Can the Tex warnings be safely ignored or do I need to removethe \space and \small from it still?

kyleniemeyer · 2023-12-12T17:40:24Z

@the-rccg let's try removing \space and \small in the equations. If you need spacing in math mode, I believe you can use \,, \:, and \; instead.

As for \small, I'm not sure the output you were aiming for there. Is that needed?

the-rccg · 2023-12-12T17:46:57Z

@kyleniemeyer removed all \small, \normalsize, and \space and replaces some with more explicit spacings.

kyleniemeyer · 2023-12-12T17:47:23Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2023-12-12T17:48:52Z

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

kyleniemeyer · 2023-12-12T17:49:42Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2023-12-12T17:49:45Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2023-12-12T17:49:47Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1063/1.871116 is OK
- 10.1006/jcph.1997.5697 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-6587/aaa373 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-6587/ace993 is OK
- 10.1063/1.5122865 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.50.682 is OK
- 10.1063/1.4796190 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-6587/abad02 is OK
- 10.1063/1.871566 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-12-12T17:50:59Z

👋 @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#4833, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

kyleniemeyer · 2023-12-12T17:52:17Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2023-12-12T17:52:19Z

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

editorialbot · 2023-12-12T17:53:56Z

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: Greif
  given-names: Robin
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4143-780X"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10365012
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Greif
    given-names: Robin
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4143-780X"
  date-published: 2023-12-12
  doi: 10.21105/joss.05959
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 92
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 5959
  title: "HW2D: A reference implementation of the Hasegawa-Wakatani
    model for plasma turbulence in fusion reactors"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05959"
  volume: 8
title: "HW2D: A reference implementation of the Hasegawa-Wakatani model
  for plasma turbulence in fusion reactors"

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 · 2023-12-12T17:53:59Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2023-12-12T17:54:00Z

🚨🚨🚨 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.05959 joss-papers#4834
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05959
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

the-rccg · 2023-12-12T18:01:26Z

All looks good. Once again, thank you all for helping in the review process!

kyleniemeyer · 2023-12-12T18:08:01Z

Congratulations @the-rccg on your article's publication in JOSS! Please consider signing up as a reviewer if you haven't already.

Many thanks to @archermarx and @Uddiptaatwork for reviewing this. We can't do it without your support.

editorialbot · 2023-12-12T18:08:03Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.05959/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05959)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05959">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05959/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05959/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05959

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 Python review TeX Track: 3 (PE) Physics and Engineering waitlisted Submissions in the JOSS backlog due to reduced service mode. labels Oct 18, 2023

editorialbot assigned kyleniemeyer Oct 18, 2023

editorialbot mentioned this issue Oct 18, 2023

[PRE REVIEW]: HW2D: A reference implementation of the Hasegawa-Wakatani model for plasma turbulence in fusion reactors #5773

Closed

kyleniemeyer removed the waitlisted Submissions in the JOSS backlog due to reduced service mode. label Nov 7, 2023

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Dec 12, 2023

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Dec 12, 2023

kyleniemeyer closed this as completed Dec 12, 2023

editorialbot mentioned this issue Nov 12, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: SynthEddy: A Python program for generating synthetic turbulent flow fields #7454

Open

[REVIEW]: HW2D: A reference implementation of the Hasegawa-Wakatani model for plasma turbulence in fusion reactors #5959

[REVIEW]: HW2D: A reference implementation of the Hasegawa-Wakatani model for plasma turbulence in fusion reactors #5959

Comments

editorialbot commented Oct 18, 2023 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Oct 18, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 18, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 18, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 18, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 18, 2023

kyleniemeyer commented Oct 18, 2023

archermarx commented Oct 19, 2023 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @archermarx

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Uddiptaatwork commented Oct 23, 2023 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @Uddiptaatwork

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

archermarx commented Oct 31, 2023 • edited Loading

the-rccg commented Nov 10, 2023

archermarx commented Nov 10, 2023

the-rccg commented Nov 10, 2023 • edited Loading

archermarx commented Nov 10, 2023

the-rccg commented Nov 10, 2023

Uddiptaatwork commented Nov 25, 2023

kyleniemeyer commented Nov 30, 2023

the-rccg commented Dec 7, 2023 • edited Loading

kyleniemeyer commented Dec 8, 2023

the-rccg commented Dec 11, 2023 • edited Loading

kyleniemeyer commented Dec 12, 2023

kyleniemeyer commented Dec 12, 2023 • edited Loading

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance

kyleniemeyer commented Dec 12, 2023

editorialbot commented Dec 12, 2023

editorialbot commented Dec 12, 2023

kyleniemeyer commented Dec 12, 2023

kyleniemeyer commented Dec 12, 2023

editorialbot commented Dec 12, 2023

editorialbot commented Dec 12, 2023

editorialbot commented Dec 12, 2023

editorialbot commented Dec 12, 2023

the-rccg commented Dec 12, 2023

kyleniemeyer commented Dec 12, 2023

the-rccg commented Dec 12, 2023

kyleniemeyer commented Dec 12, 2023

editorialbot commented Dec 12, 2023

kyleniemeyer commented Dec 12, 2023

editorialbot commented Dec 12, 2023

editorialbot commented Dec 12, 2023

editorialbot commented Dec 12, 2023

kyleniemeyer commented Dec 12, 2023

editorialbot commented Dec 12, 2023

editorialbot commented Dec 12, 2023

editorialbot commented Dec 12, 2023

editorialbot commented Dec 12, 2023

the-rccg commented Dec 12, 2023

kyleniemeyer commented Dec 12, 2023

editorialbot commented Dec 12, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 18, 2023 •

edited

Loading

archermarx commented Oct 19, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Uddiptaatwork commented Oct 23, 2023 •

edited

Loading

archermarx commented Oct 31, 2023 •

edited

Loading

the-rccg commented Nov 10, 2023 •

edited

Loading

the-rccg commented Dec 7, 2023 •

edited

Loading

the-rccg commented Dec 11, 2023 •

edited

Loading

kyleniemeyer commented Dec 12, 2023 •

edited

Loading