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]: SynxFlow: A GPU-accelerated Python package for multi-hazard simulations #7586

Open
editorialbot opened this issue Dec 11, 2024 · 8 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator

editorialbot commented Dec 11, 2024

Submitting author: @xiaxilin (Xilin Xia)
Repository: https://github.com/SynxFlow/SynxFlow
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss
Version: v1.0
Editor: @AnjaliSandip
Reviewers: @christopheredsall, @PabloIbannez, @thivinanandh
Archive: Pending

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/04b306f03970eb31c48199863ad669aa"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/04b306f03970eb31c48199863ad669aa/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/04b306f03970eb31c48199863ad669aa/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/04b306f03970eb31c48199863ad669aa)

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

@christopheredsall & @PabloIbannez & @thivinanandh, 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 @AnjaliSandip 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 @thivinanandh

@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

- 10.1002/2016WR020055 is OK
- 10.1016/j.enggeo.2023.107310 is OK
- 10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.01.011 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: hipims-cuda, commit 4aa7516
- No DOI given, and none found for title: hipims-io, commit bafc98d
- No DOI given, and none found for title: pypims, commit 27376f9

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.10 s (1830.1 files/s, 257780.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CUDA                            18            912            866           5330
C/C++ Header                    72           1038           1486           3406
Python                          17            600           1460           3380
C++                             35            525            799           2892
Jupyter Notebook                 3              0           1503            176
CMake                            6             61             23            145
Markdown                         5             74              0            127
TeX                              1              0              0             69
YAML                             2              6             16             29
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
reStructuredText                15             14             39             26
CSV                              1              0              0             10
make                             1              4              7              9
HTML                             1              1              0              5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           178           3243           6200          15630
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    88	Xilin Xia
    32	Xiaodong Ming
    19	xilin xia
     2	SynxFlow
     1	pypims

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 801

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU General Public License v3.0 (Check here for OSI approval)

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

@AnjaliSandip
Copy link

Hello, I will be on vacation starting next week until January 5. I will resume my editorial duties in the new year.

@thivinanandh
Copy link

thivinanandh commented Dec 12, 2024

Review checklist for @thivinanandh

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/SynxFlow/SynxFlow?
  • 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 (@xiaxilin) 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?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants