[REVIEW]: planetMagFields: A Python package for analyzing and plotting planetary magnetic field data

Question

[REVIEW]: planetMagFields: A Python package for analyzing and plotting planetary magnetic field data

editorialbot opened this issue 2 months ago · comments

The Open Journals editorial robot commented 2 months ago

Submitting author: @AnkitBarik (Ankit Barik)
Repository: https://github.com/AnkitBarik/planetMagFields
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 1.4.3
Editor: @dfm
Reviewers: @athulpg007, @kjg136
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.4690524

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/cba7fd0934d76b39ec197f5cdd12298b"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/cba7fd0934d76b39ec197f5cdd12298b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/cba7fd0934d76b39ec197f5cdd12298b/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/cba7fd0934d76b39ec197f5cdd12298b)

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

@athulpg007 & @kjg136, 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 @dfm 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 @kjg136

📝 Checklist for @athulpg007

Ankit Barik commented a month ago

Done !

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 1 · Wed Apr 24 2024 21:19:09 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

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

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 2 · Wed Apr 24 2024 21:19:31 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1029/2012JE004159 is OK
- 10.1029/2018JE005835 is OK
- 10.1029/2021JE007055 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-018-0468-5 is OK
- 10.1002/2018GL077312 is OK
- 10.1029/97JA03726 is OK
- 10.1029/JA092iA13p15329 is OK
- 10.1029/91JA01165 is OK
- 10.1006/icar.2002.6834 is OK
- 10.1186/s40623-020-01288-x is OK
- 10.1126/science.aat5434 is OK
- 10.1016/j.pepi.2011.05.013 is OK
- 10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.31 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-fluid-122109-160727 is OK
- 10.1201/b12985 is OK
- 10.1002/ggge.20071 is OK
- 10.2151/jmsj.2018-019 is OK
- 10.1007/s11214-023-00961-3 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10602418 is OK
- 10.1186/s40623-020-01252-9 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10598528 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4080294 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: The ParaView Guide: A Parallel Visualization Appli...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Cartopy: a cartographic python library with a Matp...

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2017.07.001 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2009.04.008 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2019.113541 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-415845-0.00006-2 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012387582-2/50038-1 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 3 · Wed Apr 24 2024 21:19:41 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.03 s (1217.4 files/s, 143891.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          17            459            741           1095
TeX                              1             42              2            433
Markdown                         2            104              0            235
reStructuredText                 8            218            276            144
YAML                             3             12             15             66
TOML                             1              6              0             44
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            167             23
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            35            853           1209           2075
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   103	AnkitBarik
    69	Ankit Barik
     6	Arthus
     1	reguang

Dan Foreman-Mackey · Answer 4 · Wed Apr 24 2024 21:19:43 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@athulpg007, @kjg136 — This is the review thread for the paper. All of our correspondence will happen here from now on. Thanks again for agreeing to participate!

👉 Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above, and generate your checklists by commenting @editorialbot generate my checklist on this issue ASAP. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#6677 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks but please try to make a start ahead of this as JOSS reviews are by their nature iterative and any early feedback you may be able to provide to the author will be very helpful in meeting this schedule. Please get your review started as soon as possible!

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 5 · Wed Apr 24 2024 21:19:48 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1983

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 6 · Wed Apr 24 2024 21:19:49 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

License info:

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

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 7 · Wed Apr 24 2024 21:20:25 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

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

Kyle Gwirtz · Answer 8 · Wed Apr 24 2024 21:53:52 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Review checklist for @kjg136

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

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/AnkitBarik/planetMagFields?
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 (@AnkitBarik) 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?

Athul Pradeepkumar Girija · Answer 9 · Thu Apr 25 2024 00:55:53 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Review checklist for @athulpg007

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

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/AnkitBarik/planetMagFields?
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 (@AnkitBarik) 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?

Athul Pradeepkumar Girija · Answer 10 · Mon Apr 29 2024 16:59:46 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@AnkitBarik please take a look at the comments below. More details are available in the linked issues.

Several example snippets use datDir='planetmagfields/data/' which will not exist if the package was installed using pip. Please see AnkitBarik/planetMagFields#8.
Please add a section for "Contributions/Community Guidelines" to README. See AnkitBarik/planetMagFields#9
Please see the suggested improvements for automated unit tests. AnkitBarik/planetMagFields#10

Athul Pradeepkumar Girija · Answer 11 · Tue Apr 30 2024 17:23:57 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Thanks for addressing the above issues. Please also see: AnkitBarik/planetMagFields#11

Athul Pradeepkumar Girija · Answer 12 · Thu May 02 2024 18:57:05 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

I have completed my initial review of the submission. This is a useful package for researchers working in the area of planetary magnetic fields by providing a fast method of plotting field data for various planets. The package is well written, along with documentation and examples to help new users get started.

My concerns raised earlier have been fixed, thanks. Please see further comments below:

According to the JOSS formatting guidelines, the paper should be between 250-1000 words. Currently, the word count is ~2k. Please consider revising the paper to reduce the length. Some suggestions are given below:

Consider shortening the "Mathematics" section to give a high-level overview, and move details to the documentation if needed.
In "Description of Software, Software package", consider removing the input lines [3, 4] which shows some coefficients. The example can be limited to showing how to plot a field.
Consider shortening the "Jupyter frontend" section, it would suffice to include a link to the binder notebook. Consider removing the line "The utilization of an interactive Jupyter notebook for the exploration of planetary magnetic fields represents a significant advancement in the pedagogical and research approach to planetary magnetic fields.", as the use of an existing general data science tool such as a Jupyter notebook in itself cannot be considered a "significant advancement" in the field of research.
Consider if the screenshot figures 5 and 6 can be removed, .

My suggestion is to shorten the paper to ~5 pages or less, including references. It would then be easier for a diverse, non-specialist audienceto quickly get a high-level understanding of the package, and then refer to the documentation for more mathematical details, example Jupyter notebook etc.

I could run the interactive Jupyter Notebook locally. When trying to run the binder online, the page loaded but the interactive notebook kept trying to load, but could not succeed. Please verify if the binder notebooks still work as expected.

Thanks!

Ankit Barik · Answer 13 · Fri May 03 2024 03:12:38 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@athulpg007 Thank you very much for the comments. I have made the following changes:

- Added an additional reference I had missed earlier to the package SHTools.
- Shortened the "Mathematics" section and removed the figure on there and moved the details to the documentation. I think the remaining description is required for readers to understand what is going on in the package. If you think it's still too much, I can try cutting it down even more with a link to the documentation.
- Removed input lines [3,4] as suggested from "Description of Software, Software package".
- Shortened the "Jupyter frontend" section significantly with only a sentence and the link to the binder.
- Removed screenshot figures 5 and 6.
  The main text of the paper is now 4 pages long (including figures). However, because of the large number of references, the total length is 7 pages. I believe the references should be there as the libraries and other studies used, need to be cited. If you have any other suggestions for slashing down on content, I would be happy to do so.
I verified on my end that the binder works as intended. I'm not entirely sure why it didn't work.

Thank you!

Ankit Barik · Answer 14 · Fri May 03 2024 03:15:29 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@editorialbot generate pdf

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 15 · Fri May 03 2024 03:16:42 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

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

Kyle Gwirtz · Answer 16 · Sat May 04 2024 03:30:39 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

I have completed my review of the submission, including the changes made in response to the first reviewer's comments. I agree that the package is useful for visualizing and analyzing planetary magnetic fields. To my knowledge, the authors are correct in their statement that no such package for a high-level language is currently established and therefore, the submission represents a valuable contribution. The documentation and examples are clear, making the package easy to understand and use.

I see no major issues and wish to only make two quick comments:

Grammatical error in line 53 of the paper: ...as how that field looks ~~like~~ at...
I can confirm I was able to use the binder.

Athul Pradeepkumar Girija · Answer 17 · Sat May 04 2024 13:48:07 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Thanks for the updates to the paper.

I have completed my review, and recommend to accept this submission.

Ankit Barik · Answer 18 · Sun May 05 2024 11:49:23 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@kjg136 @athulpg007 Thank you very much for your reviews. I have fixed the grammatical error.

Ankit Barik · Answer 19 · Sun May 05 2024 12:00:54 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@editorialbot generate pdf

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 20 · Sun May 05 2024 12:02:16 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

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

Ankit Barik · Answer 21 · Mon May 06 2024 02:09:37 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

I made one last change to the paper, I updated the citation for PlanetMag to the correct zenodo doi.

Ankit Barik · Answer 22 · Mon May 06 2024 02:09:47 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@editorialbot generate pdf

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 23 · Mon May 06 2024 02:11:31 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

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

Ankit Barik · Answer 24 · Mon May 06 2024 03:12:44 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Sorry for the spam on a Sunday, I added one final bit. I realized I had forgotten an Acknowledgements section. This has not led to any additional pages. :)

Cheers,
Ankit

Ankit Barik · Answer 25 · Mon May 06 2024 03:12:52 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@editorialbot generate pdf

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 26 · Mon May 06 2024 03:14:00 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

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

Dan Foreman-Mackey · Answer 27 · Mon May 06 2024 04:14:27 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@athulpg007, @kjg136 — Thanks for your thorough and constructive reviews!!

@AnkitBarik — I've opened a small PR with some minor edits to the manuscript, please take a look and merge or let me know what you think.

Once you've done that:

Take one last read through the manuscript to make sure that you're happy with it (it's harder to make changes later!), especially the author names and affiliations. I've taken a pass and it looks good to me!
Increment the version number of the software and report that version number back here.
Create an archived release of that version of the software (using Zenodo or something similar). Please make sure that the metadata (title and author list) exactly match the paper. Then report the DOI of the release back to this thread.

Ankit Barik · Answer 28 · Mon May 06 2024 12:39:53 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@dfm Thank you very much for the minor edits.

The manuscript seems okay to me.
I have bumped up the version number to 1.4.3 everywhere (including PyPI).
A zenodo release has been automatically created through GitHub : 10.5281/zenodo.4690524 .

Dan Foreman-Mackey · Answer 29 · Mon May 06 2024 21:51:51 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Thanks! Can you update the metadata on the Zenodo archive so that the title is the same as the paper?

Dan Foreman-Mackey · Answer 30 · Wed May 08 2024 23:40:49 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@editorialbot set 1.4.3 as version

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 31 · Wed May 08 2024 23:40:52 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Done! version is now 1.4.3

Dan Foreman-Mackey · Answer 32 · Wed May 08 2024 23:41:10 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.4690524 as archive

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 33 · Wed May 08 2024 23:41:12 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.4690524

Dan Foreman-Mackey · Answer 34 · Wed May 08 2024 23:41:27 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@editorialbot check references

Dan Foreman-Mackey · Answer 35 · Wed May 08 2024 23:41:33 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@editorialbot generate pdf

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 36 · Wed May 08 2024 23:42:07 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1029/2012JE004159 is OK
- 10.1029/2018JE005835 is OK
- 10.1029/2021JE007055 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-018-0468-5 is OK
- 10.1002/2018GL077312 is OK
- 10.1029/97JA03726 is OK
- 10.1029/JA092iA13p15329 is OK
- 10.1029/91JA01165 is OK
- 10.1006/icar.2002.6834 is OK
- 10.1186/s40623-020-01288-x is OK
- 10.1126/science.aat5434 is OK
- 10.1016/j.pepi.2011.05.013 is OK
- 10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.31 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-fluid-122109-160727 is OK
- 10.1201/b12985 is OK
- 10.1002/ggge.20071 is OK
- 10.2151/jmsj.2018-019 is OK
- 10.1007/s11214-023-00961-3 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10602418 is OK
- 10.1186/s40623-020-01252-9 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10598528 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4080294 is OK
- 10.1029/2018GC007529 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10864719 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: The ParaView Guide: A Parallel Visualization Appli...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Cartopy: a cartographic python library with a Matp...

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2017.07.001 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2009.04.008 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2019.113541 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-415845-0.00006-2 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012387582-2/50038-1 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 37 · Wed May 08 2024 23:42:53 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

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

Dan Foreman-Mackey · Answer 38 · Wed May 08 2024 23:43:45 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@AnkitBarik — Can you also fix those invalid DOIs listed above? I think the "missing DOIs" are fine to ignore. Thanks!

Ankit Barik · Answer 39 · Thu May 09 2024 02:25:19 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@dfm Thank you for pointing it out. I have fixed the DOI errors.

Ankit Barik · Answer 40 · Thu May 09 2024 02:25:35 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@editorialbot check references

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 41 · Thu May 09 2024 02:25:55 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1029/2012JE004159 is OK
- 10.1016/j.pepi.2017.07.001 is OK
- 10.1029/2018JE005835 is OK
- 10.1029/2021JE007055 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-018-0468-5 is OK
- 10.1002/2018GL077312 is OK
- 10.1029/97JA03726 is OK
- 10.1029/JA092iA13p15329 is OK
- 10.1029/91JA01165 is OK
- 10.1006/icar.2002.6834 is OK
- 10.1186/s40623-020-01288-x is OK
- 10.1016/j.pss.2009.04.008 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aat5434 is OK
- 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.113541 is OK
- 10.1016/j.pepi.2011.05.013 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-0-12-415845-0.00006-2 is OK
- 10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.31 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-fluid-122109-160727 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-012387582-2/50038-1 is OK
- 10.1201/b12985 is OK
- 10.1002/ggge.20071 is OK
- 10.2151/jmsj.2018-019 is OK
- 10.1007/s11214-023-00961-3 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10602418 is OK
- 10.1186/s40623-020-01252-9 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10598528 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4080294 is OK
- 10.1029/2018GC007529 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10864719 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: The ParaView Guide: A Parallel Visualization Appli...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Cartopy: a cartographic python library with a Matp...

INVALID DOIs

- None

Ankit Barik · Answer 42 · Thu May 09 2024 02:26:25 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@editorialbot generate pdf

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 43 · Thu May 09 2024 02:27:35 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

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

Dan Foreman-Mackey · Answer 44 · Fri May 10 2024 02:49:44 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@editorialbot recommend-accept

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 45 · Fri May 10 2024 02:49:46 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 46 · Fri May 10 2024 02:50:09 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1029/2012JE004159 is OK
- 10.1016/j.pepi.2017.07.001 is OK
- 10.1029/2018JE005835 is OK
- 10.1029/2021JE007055 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-018-0468-5 is OK
- 10.1002/2018GL077312 is OK
- 10.1029/97JA03726 is OK
- 10.1029/JA092iA13p15329 is OK
- 10.1029/91JA01165 is OK
- 10.1006/icar.2002.6834 is OK
- 10.1186/s40623-020-01288-x is OK
- 10.1016/j.pss.2009.04.008 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aat5434 is OK
- 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.113541 is OK
- 10.1016/j.pepi.2011.05.013 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-0-12-415845-0.00006-2 is OK
- 10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.31 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-fluid-122109-160727 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-012387582-2/50038-1 is OK
- 10.1201/b12985 is OK
- 10.1002/ggge.20071 is OK
- 10.2151/jmsj.2018-019 is OK
- 10.1007/s11214-023-00961-3 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10602418 is OK
- 10.1186/s40623-020-01252-9 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10598528 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4080294 is OK
- 10.1029/2018GC007529 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10864719 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: The ParaView Guide: A Parallel Visualization Appli...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Cartopy: a cartographic python library with a Matp...

INVALID DOIs

- None

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 47 · Fri May 10 2024 02:51:41 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

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

No declaration for attribute displaystyle of element mfrac

Dan Foreman-Mackey · Answer 48 · Fri May 10 2024 02:55:32 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@AnkitBarik — I know that that error message is a little opaque, but my guess is that the issue here is with the use of dfrac in the manuscript. Could you try switching it to frac and we can try this again?

Ankit Barik · Answer 49 · Fri May 10 2024 03:02:17 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@dfm I have switched it to \frac and verified that it still looks fine on the pdf.

Dan Foreman-Mackey · Answer 50 · Fri May 10 2024 03:42:14 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@editorialbot recommend-accept

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 51 · Fri May 10 2024 03:42:16 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 52 · Fri May 10 2024 03:42:44 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1029/2012JE004159 is OK
- 10.1016/j.pepi.2017.07.001 is OK
- 10.1029/2018JE005835 is OK
- 10.1029/2021JE007055 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-018-0468-5 is OK
- 10.1002/2018GL077312 is OK
- 10.1029/97JA03726 is OK
- 10.1029/JA092iA13p15329 is OK
- 10.1029/91JA01165 is OK
- 10.1006/icar.2002.6834 is OK
- 10.1186/s40623-020-01288-x is OK
- 10.1016/j.pss.2009.04.008 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aat5434 is OK
- 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.113541 is OK
- 10.1016/j.pepi.2011.05.013 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-0-12-415845-0.00006-2 is OK
- 10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.31 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-fluid-122109-160727 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-012387582-2/50038-1 is OK
- 10.1201/b12985 is OK
- 10.1002/ggge.20071 is OK
- 10.2151/jmsj.2018-019 is OK
- 10.1007/s11214-023-00961-3 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10602418 is OK
- 10.1186/s40623-020-01252-9 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10598528 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4080294 is OK
- 10.1029/2018GC007529 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10864719 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: The ParaView Guide: A Parallel Visualization Appli...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Cartopy: a cartographic python library with a Matp...

INVALID DOIs

- None

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 53 · Fri May 10 2024 03:43:40 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

👋 @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#5337, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

Dan Foreman-Mackey · Answer 54 · Fri May 10 2024 03:44:16 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@editorialbot accept

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 55 · Fri May 10 2024 03:44:18 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

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

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 56 · Fri May 10 2024 03:50:51 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

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:
- email: ankit.barik@gmail.com
  family-names: Barik
  given-names: Ankit
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5747-669X"
- email: rangapp1@jhu.edu
  family-names: Angappan
  given-names: Regupathi
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6258-0659"
contact:
- email: ankit.barik@gmail.com
  family-names: Barik
  given-names: Ankit
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5747-669X"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4690524
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - email: ankit.barik@gmail.com
    family-names: Barik
    given-names: Ankit
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5747-669X"
  - email: rangapp1@jhu.edu
    family-names: Angappan
    given-names: Regupathi
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6258-0659"
  date-published: 2024-05-09
  doi: 10.21105/joss.06677
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 97
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 6677
  title: "planetMagFields: A Python package for analyzing and plotting
    planetary magnetic field data"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06677"
  volume: 9
title: "planetMagFields: A Python package for analyzing and plotting
  planetary magnetic field data"

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.

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 57 · Fri May 10 2024 03:50:54 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 58 · Fri May 10 2024 03:50:55 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

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

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#5338
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06677
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

Dan Foreman-Mackey · Answer 59 · Fri May 10 2024 03:51:06 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@athulpg007, @kjg136 — Many thanks for your reviews here! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you!!

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

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 60 · Fri May 10 2024 03:51:09 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

🎉🎉🎉 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.06677/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06677)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06677">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06677/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06677/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06677

This is how it will look in your documentation:

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:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

Ankit Barik · Answer 61 · Fri May 10 2024 03:56:01 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@dfm @athulpg007 @kjg136 This is wonderful! Thank you very much for help and reviews ! 🎉🎉🎉
@dfm I had one question : what is JOSS policy for cross-posting on Arxiv?

Athul Pradeepkumar Girija · Answer 62 · Fri May 10 2024 12:00:27 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Congratulations @AnkitBarik!

Dan Foreman-Mackey · Answer 63 · Fri May 10 2024 20:11:10 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@dfm I had one question : what is JOSS policy for cross-posting on Arxiv?

JOSS is happy for you to post to arXiv and you can use @editorialbot generate preprint to produce the required .tex file. Sometimes arXiv rejects JOSS papers as out of scope and there's not too much we can do about that unfortunately.

Ankit Barik · Answer 64 · Sun May 12 2024 12:36:22 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@editorialbot generate preprint

The Open Journals editorial robot · Answer 65 · Sun May 12 2024 12:37:53 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

📄 Preprint file created: Find it here in the Artifacts list 📄