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]: dust_extinction: Interstellar Dust Extinction Models #7023

Closed
editorialbot opened this issue Jul 22, 2024 · 65 comments
Closed

[REVIEW]: dust_extinction: Interstellar Dust Extinction Models #7023

editorialbot opened this issue Jul 22, 2024 · 65 comments
Assignees
Labels
accepted published Papers published in JOSS Python recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. review TeX Track: 1 (AASS) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Space Sciences

Comments

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator

editorialbot commented Jul 22, 2024

Submitting author: @karllark (Karl Gordon)
Repository: https://github.com/karllark/dust_extinction
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.5
Editor: @ivastar
Reviewers: @TheSkyentist, @keflavich
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.13333814

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/42619ff7078a218d14893ff2da4f6ca6"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/42619ff7078a218d14893ff2da4f6ca6/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/42619ff7078a218d14893ff2da4f6ca6/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/42619ff7078a218d14893ff2da4f6ca6)

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) by leaving comments 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

@TheSkyentist & @keflavich, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @ivastar know.

Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @keflavich

📝 Checklist for @TheSkyentist

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Hello humans, 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
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

OK DOIs

- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 is OK
- 10.1086/167900 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201015292 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5dbe is OK
- 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840 is OK
- 10.1086/191413 is OK
- 10.1086/316293 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0401344 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c3a is OK
- 10.1086/376774 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/1320 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac00b7 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/accb59 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c2 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201321686 is OK
- 10.1086/173713 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201423439 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141042 is OK
- 10.1086/424922 is OK
- 10.1086/318651 is OK
- 10.1086/382351 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Narrow band multicolor photometry of reddened and ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Interstellar dust models for extinction and emissi...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Expanded Sample of Small Magellanic Cloud Ultravio...

INVALID DOIs

- None

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.05 s (983.2 files/s, 196861.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          25           1584           2748           2650
reStructuredText                15            447            668            659
TeX                              1             23              0            361
DOS Batch                        1             21              1            150
YAML                             3             17             46            137
make                             1             22              5            106
Markdown                         1             13              0             69
INI                              1             11              0             66
TOML                             1              2              0              5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            49           2140           3468           4203
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   295	Karl Gordon
    92	Karl D. Gordon
    14	Kristen Larson
     7	aidantmcb
     4	P. L. Lim
     3	krislars
     2	Brigitta Sipocz
     1	Aidan McBride
     1	Pey Lian Lim
     1	sohamvg

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 609

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

License info:

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

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

@ivastar
Copy link

ivastar commented Jul 22, 2024

@TheSkyentist and @keflavich, thank you both for agreeing to review this submission! Please refer to the instructions on the top of this tread on how to get started with the review. Don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions, either here or via e-mail. We are shooting for the first round of review to be competed in about a month (considering summer and all) so ~ August 20th or so.

@keflavich
Copy link

keflavich commented Jul 27, 2024

Review checklist for @keflavich

Conflict of interest

  • I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/karllark/dust_extinction?
  • License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
  • Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@karllark) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
  • Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
  • Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
  • Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
  • Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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 functionality 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

  • Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
  • A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
  • State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
  • Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
  • References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

@karllark
Copy link

@editorialbot generate pdf

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

@karllark
Copy link

I have updated the paper based on @keflavich PR and suggestions.

@TheSkyentist
Copy link

TheSkyentist commented Jul 29, 2024

Review checklist for @TheSkyentist

Conflict of interest

  • I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/karllark/dust_extinction?
  • License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
  • Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@karllark) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
  • Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
  • Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
  • Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
  • Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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 functionality 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

  • Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
  • A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
  • State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
  • Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
  • References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

@karllark
Copy link

@editorialbot generate pdf

@karllark
Copy link

I have updated the paper and the repository based on @TheSkyentist suggestions.

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

@TheSkyentist
Copy link

The purpose, documentation, and examples for the code are all well described in the JOSS submission. The code is installable, flexible, and useful for current and future astronomical analysis. With the additional changes made by @karllark I would recommend this submission be accepted.

@karllark
Copy link

I would like to thank @TheSkyentist and @keflavich for their thoughtful reviews. Much appreciated!

@ivastar
Copy link

ivastar commented Aug 15, 2024

@keflavich, can you please review the changes and let me know if you accept the submission (or have further comments)?

@ivastar
Copy link

ivastar commented Aug 15, 2024

@editorialbot generate pdf

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

@ivastar
Copy link

ivastar commented Aug 15, 2024

@editorialbot check references

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

OK DOIs

- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.804967 is OK
- 10.1086/167900 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201015292 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5dbe is OK
- 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840 is OK
- 10.1086/191413 is OK
- 10.1086/316293 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0401344 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c3a is OK
- 10.1086/376774 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/1320 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac00b7 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/accb59 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4be1 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c2 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201321686 is OK
- 10.1086/173713 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201423439 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141042 is OK
- 10.1086/424922 is OK
- 10.1086/318651 is OK
- 10.1086/382351 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Narrow band multicolor photometry of reddened and ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Interstellar dust models for extinction and emissi...

INVALID DOIs

- None

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.13333814

@ivastar
Copy link

ivastar commented Aug 21, 2024

@editorialbot set v1.5 as version

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Done! version is now v1.5

@ivastar
Copy link

ivastar commented Aug 21, 2024

@editorialbot generate pdf

@ivastar
Copy link

ivastar commented Aug 21, 2024

@editorialbot check references

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.804967 is OK
- 10.1086/167900 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201015292 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5dbe is OK
- 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840 is OK
- 10.1086/191413 is OK
- 10.1086/316293 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0401344 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c3a is OK
- 10.1086/376774 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/1320 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac00b7 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/accb59 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4be1 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c2 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201321686 is OK
- 10.1086/173713 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201423439 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141042 is OK
- 10.1086/424922 is OK
- 10.1086/318651 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/202348391 is OK
- 10.1086/382351 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Narrow band multicolor photometry of reddened and ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Interstellar dust models for extinction and emissi...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

@ivastar
Copy link

ivastar commented Aug 21, 2024

@editorialbot recommend-accept

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.804967 is OK
- 10.1086/167900 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201015292 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5dbe is OK
- 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840 is OK
- 10.1086/191413 is OK
- 10.1086/316293 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0401344 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c3a is OK
- 10.1086/376774 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/1320 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac00b7 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/accb59 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4be1 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c2 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201321686 is OK
- 10.1086/173713 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201423439 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141042 is OK
- 10.1086/424922 is OK
- 10.1086/318651 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/202348391 is OK
- 10.1086/382351 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Narrow band multicolor photometry of reddened and ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Interstellar dust models for extinction and emissi...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

⚠️ Error preparing paper acceptance. The generated XML metadata file is invalid.

IDREFS attribute rid references an unknown ID "figU003AgrainU0029"

@ivastar
Copy link

ivastar commented Aug 21, 2024

@keflavich and @TheSkyentist, thank you both for the expedient and detailed reviews!

@karllark
Copy link

PR (karllark/dust_extinction#235) to fix type merged. Thanks @ivastar!

@ivastar
Copy link

ivastar commented Aug 21, 2024

@editorialbot recommend-accept

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.804967 is OK
- 10.1086/167900 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201015292 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5dbe is OK
- 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840 is OK
- 10.1086/191413 is OK
- 10.1086/316293 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0401344 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c3a is OK
- 10.1086/376774 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/1320 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac00b7 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/accb59 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4be1 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c2 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201321686 is OK
- 10.1086/173713 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201423439 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141042 is OK
- 10.1086/424922 is OK
- 10.1086/318651 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/202348391 is OK
- 10.1086/382351 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Narrow band multicolor photometry of reddened and ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Interstellar dust models for extinction and emissi...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

👋 @openjournals/aass-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#5792, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

@editorialbot editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Aug 21, 2024
@ivastar
Copy link

ivastar commented Aug 21, 2024

🎉 success! Thank you for submitting to JOSS @karllark! Pleasure working with you on this.

The editor in chief has to push the final button for publication, which he will probably do in the next week or so. But our work here is done.

@karllark
Copy link

Most excellent! Thanks to all that worked on this submission! Excited to have this paper appear and to have an awesome reference for this package.

@dfm
Copy link

dfm commented Aug 25, 2024

@editorialbot accept

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Gordon
  given-names: Karl D.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5340-6774"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13333814
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Gordon
    given-names: Karl D.
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5340-6774"
  date-published: 2024-08-25
  doi: 10.21105/joss.07023
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 100
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 7023
  title: "dust_extinction: Interstellar Dust Extinction Models"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07023"
  volume: 9
title: "dust_extinction: Interstellar Dust Extinction Models"

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

  1. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.07023 joss-papers#5809
  2. Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07023
  3. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
  4. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

@editorialbot editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Aug 25, 2024
@dfm
Copy link

dfm commented Aug 25, 2024

Many thanks to @TheSkyentist and @keflavich for reviewing and to @ivastar for editing! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you!!

@karllark — Your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS! ⚡🚀💥

@dfm dfm closed this as completed Aug 25, 2024
@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

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

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07023/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07023)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07023">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07023/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07023/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07023

This is how it will look in your documentation:

DOI

We need your help!

The 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:

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 Python recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. review TeX Track: 1 (AASS) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Space Sciences
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants