[PRE REVIEW]: 21cmSense v2: A modular, open-source 21 cm sensitivity calculator

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @steven-murray (Steven Murray)
Repository: https://github.com/rasg-affiliates/21cmSense
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-paper
Version: v2.0.0
Editor: @arfon
Reviewers: @mattpitkin, @htjb
Managing EiC: Dan Foreman-Mackey

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0d6559d317f00910467af9b8c74aa52e"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0d6559d317f00910467af9b8c74aa52e/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0d6559d317f00910467af9b8c74aa52e/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0d6559d317f00910467af9b8c74aa52e)

Author instructions

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

@steven-murray 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=0.14 s (536.6 files/s, 63409.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          32            832            827           2488
reStructuredText                17            161            101            498
YAML                            20             45             34            467
Jupyter Notebook                 4              0           2786            289
TeX                              1             17              0            283
make                             1             24              5            125
Markdown                         1             13              0             81
TOML                             1              2              0             21
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            77           1094           3753           4252
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 679

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1017/pasa.2012.007 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f is OK
- 10.1017/pasa.2019.21 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stad3849 is OK
- 10.1088/1538-3873/129/974/045001 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv571 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx2118 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty796 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz3138 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/165 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-6256/145/3/65 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/66 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201220873 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw1310 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2401.04174 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.22323/1.215.0012 may be a valid DOI for title: Cosmology from EoR/Cosmic Dawn with the SKA

INVALID DOIs

- None

[dfm]

@steven-murray — 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]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

21cmFAST v3: A Python-integrated C code for generating 3D realizations of the cosmic 21cm signal.
Submitting author: @steven-murray
Handling editor: @dfm (Active)
Reviewers: @sambit-giri, @sultan-hassan
Similarity score: 0.8720

The Python Sky Model 3 software
Submitting author: @zonca
Handling editor: @christinahedges (Retired)
Reviewers: @patricialarsen, @smsharma
Similarity score: 0.8408

Simulating instrumental systematics of Cosmic Microwave Background experiments with s4cmb
Submitting author: @JulienPeloton
Handling editor: @mbobra (Active)
Reviewers: @Christovis, @changhoonhahn
Similarity score: 0.8286

SALSA: A Python Package for Constructing Synthetic Quasar Absorption Line Catalogs from Astrophysical Hydrodynamic Simulations
Submitting author: @biboyd
Handling editor: @danielskatz (Active)
Reviewers: @olebole, @zpace
Similarity score: 0.8258

The Pulsar Signal Simulator: A Python package for simulating radio signal data from pulsars
Submitting author: @Hazboun6
Handling editor: @mbobra (Active)
Reviewers: @JBorrow, @arjunsavel
Similarity score: 0.8225

⚠️ 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.

[steven-murray]

@dfm thank you!

[arfon]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

@dfm – I can take this.

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @arfon is now the editor

[arfon]

@steven-murray thanks for your submission to JOSS – could you take a look a this list of potential reviewers and identify a few people who would be good candidates to review this submission?

[arfon]

@Hazboun6 @JulienPeloton @zonca 👋 would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The submission under consideration is 21cmSense v2: A modular, open-source 21 cm sensitivity calculator

Based on your experience, and past submissions as authors here @ JOSS, we think you might be able to provide a great review of this submission. Please let me know if you think you can help us out!

Many thanks
Arfon

[arfon]

@steven-murray thanks for your submission to JOSS – could you take a look a this list of potential reviewers and identify a few people who would be good candidates to review this submission?

@steven-murray – I need your help here please.

[steven-murray]

Hi @arfon -- sorry I missed your earlier comments!

I just took a look through the list, and here's a few possible candidates: @JohannesBuchner , @astrophpeter, @htjb , @changhoonhahn , @sambit-giri , @astrom-tom , @williamjameshandley , @mattpitkin (sorry for the spam notices!)

[mattpitkin]

I'm happy to review this.

[arfon]

@mattpitkin – amazing, thank you! I'll go ahead and add you as a reviewer now, and then start the review once we have a second reviewer (which won't be too long I hope). Does that sound OK?

[arfon]

@editorialbot add @mattpitkin as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@mattpitkin added to the reviewers list!

[htjb]

@arfon @steven-murray also happy to review if you still need another.

[arfon]

@editorialbot add @htjb as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@htjb added to the reviewers list!

[arfon]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6501.

[arfon]

@mattpitkin, @htjb, @steven-murray – see you over in #6501 where the actual review will take place.