[PRE REVIEW]: PyPEEC: A 3D Quasi-Magnetostatic Solver using an FFT-Accelerated PEEC Method with Voxelization

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @otvam (Thomas Guillod)
Repository: https://github.com/otvam/pypeec
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper_joss
Version: v4.8.0
Editor: @likeajumprope
Reviewers: @thelfer
Managing EiC: Kyle Niemeyer

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/6027b31c73e5c4cc86f21b40e73ef62f"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/6027b31c73e5c4cc86f21b40e73ef62f/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/6027b31c73e5c4cc86f21b40e73ef62f/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/6027b31c73e5c4cc86f21b40e73ef62f)

Author instructions

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

@otvam 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=0.04 s (146.0 files/s, 258826.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVG                              2              2              2          10273
TeX                              1             17              0            157
Markdown                         1             24              0            129
YAML                             1              2              0             19
Bourne Shell                     1              3              2              8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                             6             48              4          10586
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1002

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a valid open source license

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.6028/jres.069c.016 may be a valid DOI for title: Exact Inductance Equations for Rectangular Conductors with Applications to more Complicated Geometries
- 10.2528/pierm12080314 may be a valid DOI for title: Exact Closed Form Formula for Self Inductance of Conductor of Rectangular Cross Section
- 10.1109/tpel.2021.3092431 may be a valid DOI for title: FFT-PEEC: A Fast Tool From CAD to Power Electronics Simulations
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2014.03.026 may be a valid DOI for title: Stable FFT-JVIE Solvers for Fast Analysis of Highly Inhomogeneous Dielectric Objects
- 10.1016/0885-064x(86)90007-5 may be a valid DOI for title: Fast Multiplication of a Recursive Block Toeplitz Matrix by a Vector and its Application
- 10.1109/temc.2023.3238394 may be a valid DOI for title: Efficient PEEC Iterative Solver for Power Electronic Applications
- 10.1109/tmtt.1974.1128204 may be a valid DOI for title: Equivalent Circuit Models for Three-Dimensional Multiconductor Systems
- 10.1109/tap.2019.2927789 may be a valid DOI for title: A Volume PEEC Formulation Based on the Cell Method for Electromagnetic Problems From Low to High Frequency
- 10.1109/tmtt.2017.2785842 may be a valid DOI for title: VoxHenry: FFT-Accelerated Inductance Extraction for Voxelized Geometries
- 10.1088/1361-6587/abce8f may be a valid DOI for title: Fast Fourier Transform-Volume Integral: a Smart Approach for the Electromagnetic Design of Complex Systems in Large Fusion Devices
- 10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106543 may be a valid DOI for title: A Fast Tool for the Parametric Analysis of Human Body Exposed to LF Electromagnetic Fields in Biomedical Applications
- 10.1109/iceccme52200.2021.9590864 may be a valid DOI for title: Application of FFT-PEEC Method for Nonlinear Inductance Extraction
- 10.1109/icemic.2003.1287800 may be a valid DOI for title: A Review on Computational EMI Modelling Techniques

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

scikit-fem: A Python package for finite element assembly
Submitting author: @kinnala
Handling editor: @meg-simula (Retired)
Reviewers: @thelfer, @AnjaliSandip
Similarity score: 0.8172

The Pencil Code, a modular MPI code for partial differential equations and particles: multipurpose and multiuser-maintained
Submitting author: @AxelBrandenburg
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @zingale, @rtfisher
Similarity score: 0.8156

GPUE: Graphics Processing Unit Gross--Pitaevskii Equation solver
Submitting author: @leios
Handling editor: @labarba (Retired)
Reviewers: @mgalloy, @markbasham
Similarity score: 0.8133

py-pde: A Python package for solving partial differential equations
Submitting author: @david-zwicker
Handling editor: @xuanxu (Active)
Reviewers: @celliern, @mstimberg
Similarity score: 0.8129

PyGBe: Python, GPUs and Boundary elements for biomolecular electrostatics
Submitting author: @labarba
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @kyleniemeyer
Similarity score: 0.8125

⚠️ 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.

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot check repository from branch main

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.14 s (1348.2 files/s, 142207.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          76           3103           4217           6489
YAML                            56            110            683           1767
SVG                              4              4              4           1217
reStructuredText                17            265            217            464
JSON                            17              0              0            332
Bourne Shell                     8             78            120            220
Markdown                         4             25              0             90
Drools                           2              0              0             64
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            198             44
TOML                             1              2              5              6
HTML                             1              0              0              1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           187           3587           5444          10694
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[kyleniemeyer]

Hello @otvam, thanks for your submission to JOSS. We'll use this pre-review issue to assign an editor and find reviewers; unfortunately, we don't have any editors available to handle your submission right now, so I need to put this on our waitlist until someone can edit it.

In the meantime, any reviewer recommendations you can make would be welcome.

[samhforbes]

@likeajumprope might this one be in scope for you?

[likeajumprope]

yes I can take this one

[likeajumprope]

@editorialbot assign @likeajumprope as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @likeajumprope is now the editor

[kyleniemeyer]

Thanks, @likeajumprope!

[likeajumprope]

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

Editorialbot is incorrect here, statement of need is present.

[likeajumprope]

Failed to discover a valid open source license

Editorialbot is incorrect here, work covered by CC BY 4.0

[likeajumprope]

👋 @otvam, to move this paper to the next state, could you suggest 2-3 suitable reviewers?

[kyleniemeyer]

Failed to discover a valid open source license

Editorialbot is incorrect here, work covered by CC BY 4.0

So, CC BY is not a software license - is that just for the written work?

I do see the MPL 2 license in the main repo: https://github.com/otvam/pypeec/blob/main/LICENSE.txt

editorialbot's issue here is that it's looking at just the paper branch paper_joss, which doesn't have the software license. (That's why I ran the repository checks from the main branch above.)

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

Editorialbot is incorrect here, statement of need is present.

Yeah, that's strange - I see it too. Safe to ignore :)

[likeajumprope]

Failed to discover a valid open source license

Editorialbot is incorrect here, work covered by CC BY 4.0

So, CC BY is not a software license - is that just for the written work?

I do see the MPL 2 license in the main repo: https://github.com/otvam/pypeec/blob/main/LICENSE.txt

editorialbot's issue here is that it's looking at just the paper branch paper_joss, which doesn't have the software license. (That's why I ran the repository checks from the main branch above.)

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

Editorialbot is incorrect here, statement of need is present.

Yeah, that's strange - I see it too. Safe to ignore :)

Ahh thanks for the feedback!!

[otvam]

Great!

Here would be some suitable reviewers from the JOSS database:

• Hai HUANG
• Timothy George Pelham
• Igor
• akm12k16

[likeajumprope]

Thank you @otvam!

[likeajumprope]

👋 @akm12k16 @LyceanEM @maple367 could you help us reviewing this paper?

[maple367]

👋 @akm12k16 @LyceanEM @maple367 could you help us reviewing this paper?

I can help with the physical numerical methods section. Is it ok?

[LyceanEM]

Hello, I can help reviewing, however I am quite heavily loaded at the moment, so in the interests of prompt reviewing a different reviewer might be preferable.

[likeajumprope]

👋 @akm12k16 @LyceanEM @maple367 could you help us reviewing this paper?

I can help with the physical numerical methods section. Is it ok?

Yes that would be fantastic. Could you give me a quick heads up if you are still available @maple367 ?

[maple367]

👋 @akm12k16 @LyceanEM @maple367 could you help us reviewing this paper?

I can help with the physical numerical methods section. Is it ok?

Yes that would be fantastic. Could you give me a quick heads up if you are still available @maple367 ?

Sorry. I've been a bit busy with work lately and cannot help with the review.

[LyceanEM]

@likeajumprope I will not be able to review until late April. If that is acceptable I am willing.

[likeajumprope]

@likeajumprope I will not be able to review until late April. If that is acceptable I am willing.

Thank you @LyceanEM we will keep you in mind but we hope to find someone sooner.

[likeajumprope]

Hi @thelfer, would you be able to help with this one?

[thelfer]

Hi @thelfer, would you be able to help with this one?

@likeajumprope I see that you made this proposal three weeks ago, but I did not get any notification. Maybe my e-mail have treated this request as a spam. Anyway my apologies for this delay. I have no experience with magnetostatic and will be very busy in the next three weeks. However, the project seems interesting as I work with lot of FFT solvers in mechanics. What would be deadline ?

[AnjaliSandip]

@likeajumprope Unfortunately, I am unable to review this at this time.

[likeajumprope]

@likeajumprope Unfortunately, I am unable to review this at this time.

Thank you for letting us know!

[likeajumprope]

Hi @thelfer, would you be able to help with this one?

@likeajumprope I see that you made this proposal three weeks ago, but I did not get any notification. Maybe my e-mail have treated this request as a spam. Anyway my apologies for this delay. I have no experience with magnetostatic and will be very busy in the next three weeks. However, the project seems interesting as I work with lot of FFT solvers in mechanics. What would be deadline ?

Hi @thelfer, we are still trying to find reviewers so we could be a bit more lenient with the deadline. If you could provide the review within 1 month -ish that would be fine. Your help would be greatly appreciated

[thelfer]

@likeajumprope fine for me then.

[thelfer]

@likeajumprope I have made a review for JOSS for at least one year now (a shame). Would you remind me how to start my duty ?

[likeajumprope]

@editorialbot add @thelfer as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@thelfer added to the reviewers list!

[likeajumprope]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6644.

[likeajumprope]

@thelfer I have started the review process for you, although we are still looking for additional reviewers. See also here for more info on the review process, or let me know if you need any more help. Thanks heaps for your support!