[PRE REVIEW]: SAnTex: A Python-based Library for Seismic Anisotropy Calculation
editorialbot opened this issue · comments
Submitting author: @utpal-singh (Utpal Singh)
Repository: https://github.com/utpal-singh/SAnTex
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main
Version: v1.2
Editor: @rkurchin
Reviewers: @elena-pascal
Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng
Status
Status badge code:
HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/aa2dd813064832aa84422d04abd0d5fc"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/aa2dd813064832aa84422d04abd0d5fc/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/aa2dd813064832aa84422d04abd0d5fc)
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @utpal-singh. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
@utpal-singh 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
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
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=1.14 s (51.6 files/s, 949175.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JSON 4 0 0 4408
Python 33 765 1094 2305
TeX 1 26 0 442
Jupyter Notebook 6 0 1076456 319
reStructuredText 9 70 131 89
Markdown 2 36 0 82
YAML 2 8 5 30
DOS Batch 1 8 1 26
make 1 4 7 9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 59 917 1077694 7710
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
153 utpal-singh
17 Sinan Özaydın
6 Utpal Singh
3 usin8611
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/0191-8141(89)90042-4 is OK
- 10.1002/2016GC006705 is OK
- 10.3390/min11121322 is OK
- 10.1002/2017GL075647 is OK
- 10.1029/JB074i025p05961 is OK
- 10.1038/nature21359 is OK
- 10.1093/petrology/29.3.625 is OK
- 10.1029/2010GC003296 is OK
- 10.1144/M56-2020-16 is OK
- 10.1029/2019GC008289 is OK
- 10.1002/2015GC005964 is OK
- 10.1016/j.tecto.2006.02.011 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev.earth.36.031207.124120 is OK
- 10.1016/j.tecto.2015.07.026 is OK
- 10.1016/j.epsl.2005.01.024 is OK
- 10.1002/2016RG000552 is OK
- 10.1029/JB074i025p05973 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2012.05.031 is OK
- 10.1029/2003GC000614 is OK
- 10.1029/GD016p0111 is OK
- 10.1029/2018GC007931 is OK
- 10.1029/93GL02791 is OK
- 10.1029/98JB01489 is OK
- 10.1029/2000JB900041 is OK
- 10.1107/S1600576720011103 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
Paper file info:
📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1114
✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section
License info:
🟡 License found: GNU General Public License v3.0 (Check here for OSI approval)
Hi @utpal-singh and thanks for your submission! I am looking for some specific items to make sure your submission fits our requirements at a high level (not at the more detailed review level) before moving on to finding an editor or putting this on our waitlist if no relevant editors are available. I'll comment over time as I have a chance to go through them:
- OSI-approved license
- Installation instructions
- Documentation
- Tests of some sort
- Check paper
- Substantial scholarly effort
- Clear research application/in scope
In the meantime, please take a look at the comments above ⬆️ from the editorialbot to address any DOI, license, or paper issues if you're able (there may not be any), or suggest reviewers. For reviewers, please suggest 5 reviewers from the database listed above or your own (non-conflicted) extended network. Their github handles are most useful to receive but please don't use "@" to reference them since it will prematurely ping them.
@utpal-singh some comments/questions:
- I see a readthedocs file and docs files, notebooks, example files, but no readthedocs link?
- how should a user verify that the code is working correctly once they install it?
Hi @kthyng ,
Thank you for your feedback. Although the documentation is in the readme.pdf, but I will also upload the readthedocs link. I will also add tests to insure proper functionality. I appreciate your feedback. Thanks.
Utpal
@editorialbot commands
Hello @utpal-singh, here are the things you can ask me to do:
# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands
# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors
# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist
# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch
# Run checks and provide information on the repository and the paper file
@editorialbot check repository
# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references
# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf
# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint
# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers
@editorialbot generate my checklist
Checklists can only be created once the review has started in the review issue
@editorialbot generate pdf
@utpal-singh I see you added a tests file. That is ok though it is pretty short. You can probably make an argument (though I haven't looked in detail) that your examples and notebook can be used to verify behavior. You might also consider integrating these into your readthedocs now that you have everything so nicely set up, to make them more user-friendly. This is a suggestion not a requirement (at this point).
Hi author and thanks for your submission! We have a backlog of submissions so I will add this to our waitlist. Thanks for your patience. In the meantime, please suggest 5 reviewers from the database listed above or your own (non-conflicted) extended network. Their github handles are most useful to receive but please don't use "@" to reference them since it will prematurely ping them.
Hi @kthyng, Thanks for checking the repo. Here are some of the reviewers I can suggest (non-conflicted)
- Dr. Luiz Grafulha Morales, ETH Zurich (Github: lfgmorales)
- Dr. Rüdiger Kilian, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle (Github: kilir)
- Dr. Benjamin Holtzman, Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory (Github: benholtzman)
@rkurchin Might you be able to edit this submission?
@editorialbot invite @rkurchin as editor
Invitation to edit this submission sent!
@editorialbot assign me as editor
Sure, I should be able to handle this.
Assigned! @rkurchin is now the editor
👋 @elena-pascal and/or @SunilAnandatheertha, would you be willing to review this submission for 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
Sure, looks interesting.
@editorialbot add @elena-pascal as reviewer
@elena-pascal added to the reviewers list!
@editorialbot generate my checklist
Checklists can only be created once the review has started in the review issue