[REVIEW]: Mayawaves: Python Library for Interacting with the Einstein Toolkit and the MAYA Catalog #6032
Comments
editorialbot
added
Jupyter Notebook
Perl
review
Shell
Track: 1 (AASS)
|
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: For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type: |
|
@editorialbot check references |
|
|
|
Wordcount for |
|
|
@deborahferguson, already a job for you: could you fix the missing DOI (see above)? |
|
Okay I just fixed it! |
|
@eloisabentivegna can you add me as a reviewer here too? Thanks :) |
|
@editorialbot add @Sbozzolo as reviewer |
|
@Sbozzolo added to the reviewers list! |
Review checklist for @SbozzoloConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
|
Hi @deborahferguson, given the long time it took to find you an editor and reviewers, I already started looking at the repository and the paper. There are some important issues that would be good to address first (before the rest of the review can proceed). My first impression is that the documentation is rather minimal (as far I can see there's only a few jupyter notebooks and the function docstrings). Importantly:
In addition to this, it would be helpful to expand the documentation to discuss the various modules in more details, provide references/equations/conventions used, discuss features, et cetera. Other first impressions: The git repository is quite large (560 MB), entirely due to the files in the test folder (the code is 500 kB). It would be good to see if it is possible to reduce the size. The git history is almost empty, so I cannot judge about authorship of the software. Regarding the paper, it is well written. Here's some recommendations for content that should be included: I think it would be good to mention that Einstein Toolkit is open source (is maya open source)? Given the fragmented nature of Einstein Toolkit, it would be useful to explicitly mention which thorns are supported. The paper also does not survey the state of the art regarding packages for gravitational wave analysis in Einstein Toolkit. In particular, it would be important to to discuss what additional features mayawaves has compared to the two gravitational wave analysis Python packages that come with Einstein Toolkit: kuibit (of which I am author), and POWER. I am looking forward to reviewing your package! |
|
Thanks for the quick feedback! I'll work on adding in more documentation promptly. Thanks! |
|
@Sbozzolo In regards to the authorship, this was developed on an internal GitHub and when we decided to make it public, I moved it onto the normal GitHub. I chose not to port over all the git history due to security risks of early versions having local file paths, etc hardcoded into files (particularly in regards to tests and example simulations). That git history does still exist so maybe I can share screenshots or something of the contribution statistics |
I'll let @eloisabentivegna comment on how/if authorship should be verified. My comment was mostly to point out that I don't have much to say about it (and it is one of the boxes that need to be check). |
|
Good point, @Sbozzolo. Notice that non-code contributions can also be grounds for authorship in JOSS (see https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#authorship). So, if the author list cannot clearly be established by inspecting the code repo, it is ultimately up to @deborahferguson to state who should be included (and perhaps provide a quick explanation why). Having said this, I would like to loop in @openjournals/aass-eics to confirm. |
Review checklist for @cjoanaConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
Thanks @eloisabentivegna! I agree with everything you've said here about our authorship policy. I think that given the unique context here (missing git history) it is useful to call this out, but we're generally happy to proceed given a summary like @deborahferguson's above. Thanks all! |
|
I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:
|
|
@editorialbot set v2024.6 as version |
|
Done! version is now v2024.6 |
|
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.11551465 as archive |
|
Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.11551465 |
|
@deborahferguson, can you change the Zenodo title to match this submission's title exactly? |
|
@editorialbot generate pdf |
|
@editorialbot check references |
|
|
I've changed the Zenodo title |
|
@editorialbot recommend-accept |
|
|
|
Just recommended acceptance for this submission. Congratulations @deborahferguson, and thanks for sharing your code; thanks also @cjoana and @Sbozzolo for your time and work on the reviews. |
|
👋 @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#5500, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command |
editorialbot
added
the
recommend-accept
|
@editorialbot accept |
|
|
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
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. |
|
🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘 |
|
🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨 Here's what you must now do:
Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team... |
|
Many thanks to @cjoana and @Sbozzolo for reviewing and to @eloisabentivegna for editing! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you!! @deborahferguson — Your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS! ⚡🚀💥 |
|
🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉 If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets: 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:
|
Submitting author: @deborahferguson (Deborah Ferguson)
Repository: https://github.com/MayaWaves/mayawaves
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper
Version: v2024.6
Editor: @eloisabentivegna
Reviewers: @cjoana, @Sbozzolo
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.11551465
Status
Status badge code:
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
@cjoana, 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:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @eloisabentivegna 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 @cjoana
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: