[PRE REVIEW]: BSAVI: Bayesian Sample Visualizer for Cosmological Likelihoods

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @wen-jams (James Wen)
Repository: https://github.com/wen-jams/bsavi
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.4.0
Editor: Pending
Reviewers: Pending
Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b712b839ab716a100ed17bac775debe1"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b712b839ab716a100ed17bac775debe1/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b712b839ab716a100ed17bac775debe1/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b712b839ab716a100ed17bac775debe1)

Author instructions

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

@wen-jams 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]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/07/034 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00024 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=5.82 s (6.5 files/s, 1812.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jupyter Notebook                 8              0           7271           1023
Python                          13            109            117            604
reStructuredText                 6            305            447            241
Markdown                         2             53              0            113
YAML                             3              9              4             89
TeX                              2             12              0             86
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
JSON                             2              0              0              2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            38            500           7847           2193
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1137

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

Bayesian X-ray Analysis (BXA) v4.0
Submitting author: @JohannesBuchner
Handling editor: @jgostick (Active)
Reviewers: @cescalara, @cescalara, @grburgess
Similarity score: 0.8367

uravu: Making Bayesian modelling easy(er)
Submitting author: @arm61
Handling editor: @dfm (Active)
Reviewers: @ejhigson, @joshspeagle
Similarity score: 0.8288

sbi: A toolkit for simulation-based inference
Submitting author: @janfb
Handling editor: @dfm (Active)
Reviewers: @EiffL, @cranmer
Similarity score: 0.8245

MCMCvis: Tools to Visualize, Manipulate, and Summarize MCMC Output
Submitting author: @caseyyoungflesh
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @jkarreth
Similarity score: 0.8184

fgivenx: A Python package for functional posterior plotting
Submitting author: @williamjameshandley
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @FaustinCarter, @zhampel
Similarity score: 0.8153

⚠️ 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.

[arfon]

@wen-jams – thanks for your submission to JOSS. As this submission is rather small, I'm going to start a scope review by the JOSS editorial team. This will likely take a couple of weeks.

[arfon]

@editorialbot query scope

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[arfon]

@wen-jams - thanks for your submission to JOSS. Unfortunately, after review by the JOSS editorial team we've determined that this submission doesn't meet our substantial scholarly effort criterion.

One possible alternative to JOSS is to follow GitHub's guide on how to create a permanent archive and DOI for your software. This DOI can then be used by others to cite your work.

[arfon]

@editorialbot reject

[editorialbot]

Paper rejected.

[wen-jams]

Hello! Thanks for your review. May I ask which specific substantial scholarly effort criteria I didn't meet?