[PRE REVIEW]: TelescopeML -- I. An End-to-End Python Package for Interpreting Telescope Datasets through Training Machine Learning Models, Generating Statistical Reports, and Visualizing Results

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @EhsanGharibNezhad (Ehsan Gharib-Nezhad)
Repository: https://github.com/EhsanGharibNezhad/TelescopeML
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss
Version: v0.0.3
Editor: @plaplant
Reviewers: @oparisot
Managing EiC: Dan Foreman-Mackey

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/341c09d394beb3918d85a6b176eb9b83"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/341c09d394beb3918d85a6b176eb9b83/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/341c09d394beb3918d85a6b176eb9b83/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/341c09d394beb3918d85a6b176eb9b83)

Author instructions

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

@EhsanGharibNezhad 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=0.07 s (496.1 files/s, 262999.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          11            952           1486           2122
Jupyter Notebook                 4              0          10305            755
YAML                             6             10              9            753
TeX                              1             35              0            384
Markdown                         2             60              0            228
reStructuredText                 7            135             79            127
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            33           1204          11887           4404
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1153

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.3847/1538-3881/aae77c is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/acb04a is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-022-05591-3 is OK
- 10.1088/1538-3873/acd1b5 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1705.05165 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03021 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122522 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/acabc2 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04873 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ace530 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1088/0004-637x/783/2/70 may be a valid DOI for title: A systematic retrieval analysis of secondary eclipse spectra. II. A uniform analysis of nine planets and their C to O ratios
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4399 may be a valid DOI for title: ExoMiner: A Highly Accurate and Explainable Deep Learning Classifier that Validates 301 New Exoplanets

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.107398 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

Astronomical échelle spectroscopy data analysis with muler
Submitting author: @gully
Handling editor: @xuanxu (Active)
Reviewers: @bmorris3, @wtgee
Similarity score: 0.8454

coronagraph: Telescope Noise Modeling for Exoplanets in Python
Submitting author: @jlustigy
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @lpueyo
Similarity score: 0.8453

PyAstroPol: A Python package for the instrumental polarization analysis of the astronomical optics.
Submitting author: @hemanthpruthvi
Handling editor: @pibion (Active)
Reviewers: @aquilesC, @caldarolamartin, @mwcraig
Similarity score: 0.8443

SkyPy: A package for modelling the Universe
Submitting author: @rrjbca
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @cescalara, @rmorgan10
Similarity score: 0.8439

LATTE: Lightcurve Analysis Tool for Transiting Exoplanets
Submitting author: @noraeisner
Handling editor: @xuanxu (Active)
Reviewers: @christinahedges, @aureliocarnero
Similarity score: 0.8438

⚠️ 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 considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[dfm]

@EhsanGharibNezhad — 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!

[EhsanGharibNezhad]

Hi @dfm, thank you for the message! Please let me know if there's anything I can do to facilitate the revision process.

[plaplant]

@editorialbot assign @plaplant as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @plaplant is now the editor

[plaplant]

@EhsanGharibNezhad thanks for your submission and your patience! I will be editing this submission, and will begin the process of looking for suitable reviewers. If you have any suggestions, please let me know!

[EhsanGharibNezhad]

Hi Paul @plaplant, thank you for your follow-up message. I know a few colleagues from the astrophysical community who might have time to review this package and possibly implementing it for their future observations. I'll reach out to them today and will get back to you within the next few days. Thanks!

[EhsanGharibNezhad]

@EhsanGharibNezhad thanks for your submission and your patience! I will be editing this submission, and will begin the process of looking for suitable reviewers. If you have any suggestions, please let me know!

Hi @plaplant, I'm currently working with a physicist/data scientist from Germany, @mdhabibi, to add a new feature to the package. As part of the process, he needs to familiarize himself with the TelescopeML package. According to the JOSS reviewer rules, would it be possible for him to serve as a reviewer? You can find more about his coding experience here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mahdi-habibi/

[plaplant]

@EhsanGharibNezhad thanks for looking for potential reviewers! It definitely looks like @mdhabibi has the technical qualifications to be a good reviewer. However, my knee-jerk reaction is that this might not comply with JOSS's conflict of interest policy (a summary of which is available here). If @mdhabibi is a current collaborator/contributor, or works with you at the same institution or on the same project, then there is enough of a conflict of interest that the review might not be impartial. On the other hand, if @mdhabibi is merely someone you know (of) professionally and do not interact with directly, then it might not be a conflict of interest.

If you don't mind sharing a bit more about your working relationship with @mdhabibi, that would help determine if there is a conflict of interest or not. Meanwhile, I will continue looking for potential reviewers on my end, as we need 2 to proceed with the review. Thanks for your help!

[EhsanGharibNezhad]

@plaplant Thanks for sharing these details. Totally understandable. I was hesitant at first when I mentioned his name. He is not affiliated with the same institution where I work, but he is interested in collaborating with me on a project using the TelescopeML package by adding a module to it. Therefore, it is crucial for him to become an expert in the package and ensure that it is free of any bugs. This makes us collaborators in the near term.

To be precise, he is going to review and eventually utilize this package, whether he is assigned as a JOSS reviewer or not. He needs to ensure that the Sphinx instructions are clear, and the modules are fully functional. However, I thought assigning him as a reviewer would facilitate this process.

Anyway, this is my first submission to JOSS, and you are more familiar with the rules.

[EhsanGharibNezhad]

Hi @plaplant, I'm wondering if you have found someone to review my package?

I asked more people around me to see if someone is interested in serving as a reviewer for this package to facilitate the review process. Another scientist with an astrophysics background at NASA is willing to serve as a reviewer:

Name: Ben Lew
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ben-wei-peng-lew-598b1637/
Email: [email protected]

[EhsanGharibNezhad]

Here is another astronomer/Python developer who is willing to take the time and help improve the quality of this package.
Name: Nick Wogan [@Nicholaswogan]
Github: https://github.com/Nicholaswogan
Email: [email protected]

[EhsanGharibNezhad]

Hi @plaplant @dfm, do you have any update?

We are about to submit a second paper for a proof of concept and need to have this JOSS paper at least in progress.

[arfon]

@EhsanGharibNezhad please be patient. JOSS editors are volunteers and the editor has informed you that he is seeking reviewers for your submission.

Were this any other journal you would have zero visibility into the exact status of your paper. JOSS runs an open review process because we believe it's a better one for all, but it requires patience and grace from all involved.

[EhsanGharibNezhad]

@arfon, my intention was to facilitate the process by recommending a few potential reviewers in the field, as per your assigned editor's suggestion earlier. Of course, I'm grateful for the time that you and other members of the JOSS editorial team devote in this process.

[plaplant]

@EhsanGharibNezhad thank you for your suggestions for potential reviewers. Unfortunately, it looks like they also have conflicts of interest. In the paper, your affiliations include NASA Ames Research Center, and the suggested reviewers also seem to share that affiliation. As stated in the JOSS conflict of interest policy, being employed by the same institution in the recent past (defined as one year) is considered a conflict of interest, with the reasoning being that it may lead to a perception that the review is not impartial.

I have been looking for reviewers on my end, but have not been updating here because no one has concretely agreed to review yet. As I confirm reviewers, I will add them to this issue. Although we typically wait for 2 confirmed reviewers before beginning the review, I am willing to start the review with just a single reviewer while working to confirm a second one, which I have done occasionally on previous submissions. I understand you are anxious to begin the review process, but part of this depends on lining up qualified reviewers (who are also volunteers). I appreciate your patience, and will provide updates as they develop.

[EhsanGharibNezhad]

@plaplant thank you for your update and I see your point about my suggested reviewers.

[plaplant]

@editorialbot add @oparisot as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@oparisot added to the reviewers list!

[plaplant]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6346.