[PRE REVIEW]: FIGARO: hierarchical non-parametric inference for population studies

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @sterinaldi (Stefano Rinaldi)
Repository: https://github.com/sterinaldi/FIGARO
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-paper
Version: v1.5.3
Editor: @dfm
Reviewers: @dgerosa, @Uddiptaatwork
Managing EiC: Dan Foreman-Mackey

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d5e757291a0287f2fef1466c7eacdff5"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d5e757291a0287f2fef1466c7eacdff5/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d5e757291a0287f2fef1466c7eacdff5/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d5e757291a0287f2fef1466c7eacdff5)

Author instructions

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

@sterinaldi 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 (921.3 files/s, 114651.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          21            626           1525           3152
Markdown                         6             80              0            390
TeX                              1             10              0            179
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            675            148
reStructuredText                27            304            184             61
TOML                             1              6              0             58
INI                              1              1              0             29
YAML                             2              5              6             28
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            60           1032           2390           4045
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 959

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1093/mnras/stab3224 is OK
- 10.1093/mnrasl/slac101 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2308.12182 is OK
- 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12078-6 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stad2768 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123039 is OK
- 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11754-x is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.2307/2291069 may be a valid DOI for title: Bayesian Density Estimation and Inference Using Mixtures

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

Riroriro: Simulating gravitational waves and evaluating their detectability in Python
Submitting author: @wvanzeist
Handling editor: @dfm (Active)
Reviewers: @GregoryAshton, @katiebreivik
Similarity score: 0.8262

Asimov: A framework for coordinating parameter estimation workflows
Submitting author: @transientlunatic
Handling editor: @mbobra (Active)
Reviewers: @danehkar, @matthewfeickert
Similarity score: 0.8253

GRChombo: An adaptable numerical relativity code for fundamental physics
Submitting author: @kaclough
Handling editor: @rkurchin (Active)
Reviewers: @sbozzolo, @rashti-alireza
Similarity score: 0.8246

fishStan: Hierarchical Bayesian models for fisheries
Submitting author: @rerickson-usgs
Handling editor: @marcosvital (Active)
Reviewers: @MikeKaller, @Cole-Monnahan-NOAA
Similarity score: 0.8232

A-SLOTH: Ancient Stars and Local Observables by Tracing Halos
Submitting author: @HartwigTilman
Handling editor: @dfm (Active)
Reviewers: @gregbryan, @kaleybrauer
Similarity score: 0.8209

⚠️ 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]

@sterinaldi — 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!

[dfm]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

@sterinaldi — Thanks for your patience! I'm now available to edit this submission. My first step is to recruit two reviewers. If you have any recommendations from this list or your professional networks, please feel free to suggest them.

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @dfm is now the editor

[dfm]

👋 @wvanzeist, @dgerosa, @maxisi, @Uddiptaatwork — 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

[dfm]

@editorialbot add @dgerosa as reviewer

Thanks @dgerosa for agreeing to review this submission!! I'm still looking for a second reviewer and we'll get the review thread started as soon as we have them lined up.

[editorialbot]

@dgerosa added to the reviewers list!

[Uddiptaatwork]

@dfm @editorialbot I am happy to review.

[dfm]

@editorialbot add @Uddiptaatwork as reviewer

Thanks @Uddiptaatwork for agreeing to review!!

I'll get the main review started in a new thread and we'll continue our conversation over there.

[editorialbot]

@Uddiptaatwork added to the reviewers list!

[dfm]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6589.