[PRE REVIEW]: Simulation Decomposition in Python

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @tupui (Pamphile ROY)
Repository: https://github.com/Simulation-Decomposition/simdec-python
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss
Version: 1.1
Editor: @crvernon
Reviewers: @JoshuaOsborneDATA, @matt-graham
Managing EiC: Chris Vernon

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4099ffcb203538a89427e108392a4423"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4099ffcb203538a89427e108392a4423/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4099ffcb203538a89427e108392a4423/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4099ffcb203538a89427e108392a4423)

Author instructions

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

@tupui 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 1.90  T=0.05 s (812.8 files/s, 367992.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSV                              3              0              0          14003
Python                          10            329            207           1107
HTML                             3              6             13            458
YAML                             9             30             26            250
Markdown                         4             95              0            234
make                             2             28             14            117
TOML                             1             11              0             80
Dockerfile                       1             13              8             57
TeX                              1              3              0             47
reStructuredText                 3             14              8             29
JSON                             1              0              0             17
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            38            529            276          16399
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   203	Pamphile Roy
     1	gnopik

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.21105/joss.00097 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05309 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2023.105898 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 416

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

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

[crvernon]

@editorialbot query scope

👋 @tupui - Thanks for your submission to JOSS. It seems that your submission is closely related to one that was recently published in another software inclusive journal here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364815223002840?via%3Dihub. Thus, I have submitted this pre-review for editorial review so we may further evaluate this for uniqueness. This usually takes a week or two and I'll report back here as soon as I hear back from the rest of the editorial board.

Please feel free to comment here with any clarifying information that will help us make an informed decision. Thanks!

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[tupui]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[tupui]

Hi @crvernon, thank you for starting up the process.

Yes the paper that you linked, and that we cite in our bibliography, is the main paper presenting the method itself. The paper was an in-depth presentation of the method itself and it was only noted that the method is made freely available.

The current submission is about the software itself and all the work that was done on making a Dashboard and making it accessible to everyone for free. This last part was never shared anywhere and entirely done after the first papers' submission.

Before someone brings up the authorship. The number of commits and lines that I wrote vs Mariia is not a relevant metric in this case. I could not have written any single line of code without Mariia's inputs and her own Matlab code which I ported. This was truly a joined collaboration, hence both our names are listed as co-authors.

@gnopik here is the start of the review. And feel free to add anything to what I said here.

[crvernon]

👋 @tupui I believe we good to move forward with this submission.

We are currently managing a large backlog of submissions and the editor most appropriate for your area is already rather busy.

For now, we will need to waitlist this paper and process it as the queue reduces. Thanks for your patience!

[tupui]

Hi @crvernon, this is great news. Thank you. No worries about the timing, I understand 😃

[crvernon]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

Actually, I think I'll take this one on since you have been waiting a bit.

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @crvernon is now the editor

[crvernon]

@tupui - While we are getting started, could you take a shot at fixing these:

INVALID DOIs

• https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2023.105898 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
• https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[crvernon]

👋 @matt-graham - Would you be willing to review this submission to 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

[crvernon]

👋 @shahmoradi - Would you be willing to review this submission to 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

[tupui]

Actually, I think I'll take this one on since you have been waiting a bit.

Thank you 🙇

@tupui - While we are getting started, could you take a shot at fixing these:

INVALID DOIs

• doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2023.105898 is INVALID because of 'doi.org' prefix
• doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is INVALID because of 'doi.org' prefix

I think I fixed it already and had relaunched the build of the proof. Something did not work? I don't have more ref of doi.org in the paper.

[shahmoradi]

Dear Chris, Thank you for your invitation. I appreciate it. Unfortunately, my schedule is full for May. I want to recommend @JoshuaOsborneDATA as a potential reviewer. Joshua is a senior PhD candidate in my research group. His research is at the intersection of HPC, Monte Carlo, software development, and domain applications. He is well-versed in half a dozen programming languages. He has the caliber and expertise to review this paper. He can also get my feedback during the process if needed.

[crvernon]

Thank you so much @shahmoradi for the quick reply and recommendation! I'll give them an invite now.

[crvernon]

@JoshuaOsborneDATA would you be able to review this submission for JOSS per @shahmoradi's recommendation?

[JoshuaOsborneDATA]

Yes, I'd be happy to, Thank you!

…

On Wed, May 1, 2024, 11:13 PM Chris Vernon ***@***.***> wrote: @JoshuaOsborneDATA <https://github.com/JoshuaOsborneDATA> would you be able to review this submission for JOSS per @shahmoradi <https://github.com/shahmoradi>'s recommendation? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#6661 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALFHNN7OLVNRUE5S7CEBA3DZAG4NZAVCNFSM6AAAAABGTL2INOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAOBZGUYDEMRRHA> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[crvernon]

@editorialbot add @JoshuaOsborneDATA as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@JoshuaOsborneDATA added to the reviewers list!

[crvernon]

Thanks @JoshuaOsborneDATA, I'll get one more reviewer assigned and then we will move forward with the full review.

[matt-graham]

👋 @matt-graham - Would you be willing to review this submission to 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

Hi @crvernon. Yes I would be happy to review this submission - just as a heads up I wouldn't be able to start on review before 13th May.

[crvernon]

@editorialbot add @matt-graham as reviewer

Thanks @matt-graham and no problem!

[editorialbot]

@matt-graham added to the reviewers list!

[crvernon]

@editorialbot start review

👋 - Alright @tupui , @JoshuaOsborneDATA, and @matt-graham - I am going to close this Pre-Review and kick off the full review which you should receive a notification for. Thanks!

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6713.