[PRE REVIEW]: XRTpy : A Hinode X-Ray Telescope Python Package

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @https://github.com/joyvelasquez (Joy velasquez)
Repository: https://github.com/HinodeXRT/xrtpy
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main
Version: v0.4.0
Editor: @dfm
Reviewers: @dpshelio, @Cadair
Managing EiC: Dan Foreman-Mackey

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e8ae2a0f5cb2140907456c60f2c694ac"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e8ae2a0f5cb2140907456c60f2c694ac/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e8ae2a0f5cb2140907456c60f2c694ac/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e8ae2a0f5cb2140907456c60f2c694ac)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @https://github.com/joyvelasquez. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@https://github.com/joyvelasquez 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]

Couldn't check the bibtex because branch name is incorrect: xrtpy /joss/

[editorialbot]

Couldn't check the bibtex because branch name is incorrect: xrtpy /joss/

[editorialbot]

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

[dfm]

@editorialbot set main as branch

[editorialbot]

Done! branch is now main

[dfm]

@editorialbot check repository

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.48 s (160.0 files/s, 18837.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          21            836            633           2723
reStructuredText                27            218            232            377
YAML                             9             65              9            349
TeX                              2             11              0            317
Jupyter Notebook                 7              0           2087            276
CSS                              2             44             78            208
Markdown                         3             48              0            138
TOML                             1             14              0             90
IDL                              2             20            169             41
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
HTML                             1              9              0             21
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            77           1277           3216           4575
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[dfm]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1222

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 is OK
- 10.1086/191698 is OK
- 10.1007/s11207-007-0182-1 is OK
- 10.1007/s11214-007-9173-7 is OK
- 10.1007/s11214-007-9173-7 is OK
- 10.1007/s11207-007-9014-6 is OK
- 10.1086/337949 is OK
- 10.1007/s11207-010-9685-2 is OK
- 10.1007/s11207-013-0368-7 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/33 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201424110 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[dfm]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[dfm]

@joyvelasquez — 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!

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

stingray: A modern Python library for spectral timing
Submitting author: @dhuppenkothen
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @Cadair
Similarity score: 0.8359

X-PSI: A Python package for neutron star X-ray pulse simulation and inference
Submitting author: @drannawatts
Handling editor: @adonath (Active)
Reviewers: @JohannesBuchner, @matteobachetti
Similarity score: 0.8334

coronagraph: Telescope Noise Modeling for Exoplanets in Python
Submitting author: @jlustigy
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @lpueyo
Similarity score: 0.8292

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: 0.8288

xrdfit: A Python package for fitting synchrotron X-ray diffraction spectra
Submitting author: @merrygoat
Handling editor: @jgostick (Active)
Reviewers: @KedoKudo, @mikapfl
Similarity score: 0.8233

⚠️ 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]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

@joyvelasquez — Thanks for your patience! I can now take over this submission as editor. I'm sorry about the slow turnaround - we've been recently overloaded, and trying to catch up.

My first step will be to recruit two reviewers. Please take a look at the reviewer database to see if you can identify anyone who might be a good fit. Please mention their GitHub username here, but don't tag them (i.e. dfm not @dfm). Thanks!

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @dfm is now the editor

[dfm]

👋 @dhuppenkothen, @tddesjardins, @dpshelio — Would any of you be available and willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[joyvelasquez]

Hello @dfm,
Thank for you the update!
Here are two related reviewers: -wtbarnes & -dpshelio .

[dpshelio]

I'd love to review it (I used XRT data in the past for my research!). However, I won't be able to dedicate any time for , at least, the next two weeks. If that's OK, then please set me as a reviewer.

[dfm]

@editorialbot add @dpshelio as reviewer

@dpshelio — Thanks for the response! It would be absolutely fine for you to not start your review for 2 weeks. I should note that JOSS reviews are iterative (reviewers give feedback and authors act on that in real time) so there might even be some small steps that you could start on with limited effort before that. But regardless, I'll be watching the discussion throughout the process so just keep us all posted on your capacity as we go and we'll make it work. Many thanks!!

[editorialbot]

@dpshelio added to the reviewers list!

[dfm]

👋 @Cadair, @tyakobchuk — Would either of you be available and willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[Cadair]

Sure, I would be happy to.

[dfm]

@editorialbot add @Cadair as reviewer

Many thanks @Cadair!!

I'll get the main review started in a new thread!

[editorialbot]

@Cadair added to the reviewers list!

[dfm]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6396.