Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[REVIEW]: ParticleScattering: Solving and optimizing multiple-scattering problems in Julia #691

Closed
36 tasks done
whedon opened this issue Apr 22, 2018 · 31 comments
Closed
36 tasks done
Assignees
Labels
accepted published Papers published in JOSS recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. review

Comments

@whedon
Copy link

whedon commented Apr 22, 2018

Submitting author: @bblankrot (Boaz Blankrot)
Repository: https://github.com/bblankrot/ParticleScattering.jl
Version: v0.0.2
Editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Reviewer: @ziotom78, @ysimillides
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1241368

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/f8edc7ef1fb130748b125861a26b9232"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/f8edc7ef1fb130748b125861a26b9232/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/f8edc7ef1fb130748b125861a26b9232/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/f8edc7ef1fb130748b125861a26b9232)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@ziotom78 & @ysimillides, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

  1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
  2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman know.

Review checklist for @ziotom78

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
  • License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
  • Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v0.0.2)?
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@bblankrot) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

  • Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
  • Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
  • Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
  • Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
  • Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
  • Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
  • Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

  • Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @ysimillides

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
  • License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
  • Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v0.0.2)?
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@bblankrot) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

  • Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
  • Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
  • Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
  • Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
  • Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
  • Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
  • Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

  • Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Apr 22, 2018

Hello human, I'm @whedon. I'm here to help you with some common editorial tasks. @ziotom78, it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper 🎉.

⭐ Important ⭐

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

  1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

watching

  1. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Apr 22, 2018

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Apr 22, 2018

@ziotom78
Copy link

Everything looks fine to me, I created two PRs (#18 and #19) to improve the documentation and make the plots actually appear.

I have checked the claim in the paper that the optimization example takes 35 seconds to complete: on my (quite old) laptop the two calls to optimize_φ take 27 s and 18 s, so this point is ok as well.

@bblankrot
Copy link

Thanks for reviewing this so quickly, @ziotom78 , as well as fixing the issues! I merged both PRs.

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Copy link
Member

Thanks @ziotom78 for the fast review ⚡ !

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Copy link
Member

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Apr 24, 2018

@bblankrot the citation in your paper:

Blankrot, Boaz, and Clemens Heitzinger. 2018. “Efficient Computational Design and
Optimization of Dielectric Metamaterial Devices.” Submitted for Publication.

Would you be able to upload a pre-print e.g. via engrxiv.org/, and to add the pre-print DOI to the JOSS paper?

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Copy link
Member

At @ysimillides thanks for acting as reviewer here. I think you mentioned being able to review near the end of April. I look forward to your review. Let me know if you have any questions.

@bblankrot
Copy link

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Apr 26, 2018

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Apr 26, 2018

@bblankrot
Copy link

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman thanks for the comment, I uploaded the preprint to arxiv. Is the citation OK as is or are any changes necessary?

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Copy link
Member

👏 @bblankrot Looks good thanks.

@ysimillides
Copy link

Looks good! Two very minor thing's i'd suggest adding are JLD to the Require file (as you use it in the majority of the examples), and citing the Julia paper as a reference .

@bblankrot
Copy link

Thank you, @ysimillides! Both good ideas, I'm merging your PR and adding a reference to the 2017 Julia paper in SIAM Review.

@whedon generate pdf

@bblankrot
Copy link

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Apr 29, 2018

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented Apr 29, 2018

@bblankrot
Copy link

@ysimillides, @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman – anything else I should take care of on my end?

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Copy link
Member

@ysimillides if you are happy with these edits and there are no more points, are you able to tick the last boxes? Thanks!

@ysimillides
Copy link

Done.

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Copy link
Member

Great! Thanks for reviewing @ysimillides and @ziotom78 🚀

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Copy link
Member

@bblankrot at this point, can you please make an archive of the final reviewed software in Zenodo, or figshare, or another service, and update this thread with the DOI of the archive? Once we have that available we can process acceptance.

@bblankrot
Copy link

Is this OK, @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman ?
DOI
[![DOI](https://zenodo.org/badge/DOI/10.5281/zenodo.1241368.svg)](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1241368)
Thanks @ziotom78 @ysimillides @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman @arfon for the quick and smooth review!

@arfon arfon added the accepted label May 5, 2018
@bblankrot
Copy link

@arfon @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman - anything else I need to do? The release with the incorporated changes is v0.0.3, archived at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1241368 .

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Copy link
Member

@bblankrot apologies for the delay. @arfon we are all good to accept here.

@arfon
Copy link
Member

arfon commented May 15, 2018

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.1241368 as archive

@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented May 15, 2018

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.1241368 is the archive.

@arfon
Copy link
Member

arfon commented May 15, 2018

@ziotom78, @ysimillides - many thanks for your reviews here and to @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman for editing this submission ✨

@bblankrot - your paper is now accepted into JOSS and your DOI is https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00691 ⚡ 🚀 💥

@arfon arfon closed this as completed May 15, 2018
@whedon
Copy link
Author

whedon commented May 15, 2018

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippet:

[![DOI](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00691/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00691)

This is how it will look in your documentation:

DOI

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

@bblankrot
Copy link

no worries @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman . Thanks everybody!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
accepted published Papers published in JOSS recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. review
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants