[REVIEW]: Basix: a runtime finite element basis evaluation library #3982

whedon · 2021-12-08T13:24:23Z

Submitting author: @mscroggs (Matthew Scroggs)
Repository: https://github.com/FEniCS/basix
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: joss
Editor: @jedbrown
Reviewers: @tisaac, @wence-
Archive: 10.6084/m9.figshare.19794268.v1

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a0c3fde86db28bd8c97d0dfe92d056f1"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a0c3fde86db28bd8c97d0dfe92d056f1/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a0c3fde86db28bd8c97d0dfe92d056f1/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a0c3fde86db28bd8c97d0dfe92d056f1)

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

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

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

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

Review checklist for @tisaac

✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨

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 repository url?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@mscroggs) 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

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 and who the target audience is?
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?

Review checklist for @wence-

✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨

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 repository url?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@mscroggs) 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

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 and who the target audience is?
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?

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

whedon · 2021-12-08T13:24:27Z

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @tisaac, @wence- it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper 🎉.

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

⭐ 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:

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

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

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

@whedon commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf

whedon · 2021-12-08T13:24:39Z

Wordcount for paper.md is 1189

whedon · 2021-12-08T13:24:44Z

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.21 s (639.2 files/s, 137601.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C++                             25           1086           1008          13628
Python                          43            874            938           3352
C/C++ Header                    25            656           2035           2517
Markdown                         8            154              0            448
SVG                              7            112              0            395
YAML                             6             49              9            393
CMake                            7             65             60            263
TeX                              1             21              0            205
HTML                             4              1              7             38
reStructuredText                 2             10             11             20
make                             2              7              6             15
TOML                             1              6              0             12
CSS                              1              5              0             11
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           132           3046           4074          21297
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Statistical information for the repository 'c2639bb743affcb39fb0c2f5' was
gathered on 2021/12/08.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Adeeb Arif Kor                   3           165             67            0.26
Chris Richardson               227         14302           9403           26.37
Garth N. Wells                  89         11933          11498           26.07
Igor Baratta                    10           336            863            1.33
Jack S. Hale                     4            59             27            0.10
Jørgen Schartum Dokk             3            21             31            0.06
Massimiliano Leoni               1            11              2            0.01
Matthew Scroggs                182         30029          10261           44.82
Michal Habera                    1             0              4            0.00
igorbaratta                      1             1              1            0.00
nikhilTkur                       1           878              0            0.98

Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:

Author                     Rows      Stability          Age       % in comments
Adeeb Arif Kor               99           60.0          6.4                8.08
Chris Richardson           1560           10.9         12.9               29.81
Garth N. Wells             3980           33.4          7.6               12.94
Igor Baratta                203           60.4          5.2               11.82
Jack S. Hale                 59          100.0          4.7                1.69
Jørgen Schartum Dokk         20           95.2          4.3               20.00
Matthew Scroggs           19565           65.2          4.9               13.81
nikhilTkur                  608           69.2          3.7                0.16

whedon · 2021-12-08T13:24:58Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/1039813.1039820 is OK
- 10.11588/ans.2015.100.20553 is OK
- 10.1145/2566630 is OK
- 10.1007/BF01396415 is OK
- 10.1007/BF01389668 is OK
- 10.1007/BF01389710 is OK
- 10.1051/m2an/197307R300331 is OK
- 10.1007/BF02733251 is OK
- 10.1007/s00211-011-0394-z is OK
- 10.1007/s10208-011-9087-3 is OK
- 10.1090/S0025-5718-2013-02783-4 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-23099-8_11 is OK
- 10.1145/1731022.1731030 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2009.10.027 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon · 2021-12-08T13:25:00Z

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

jedbrown · 2021-12-08T13:28:49Z

Hi @tisaac @wence-, 👋 Welcome to JOSS and thanks for agreeing to review! The comments from @whedon above outline the review process, which takes place in this thread (possibly with issues filed in the Basix repository). I'll be watching this thread if you have any questions.

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 this issue 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 reviews to be completed within a month or so. Please let me know if you require some more time. We can also use Whedon (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@jedbrown) if you have any questions/concerns.

whedon · 2021-12-22T13:24:32Z

👋 @tisaac, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

whedon · 2021-12-22T13:24:32Z

👋 @wence-, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

wence- · 2022-01-13T18:20:31Z

Installation issues on first pass review

[JOSS]: numpy requirement not satisfied after pip install FEniCS/basix#369
[JOSS]: sympy requirement for some python tests not mentioned in INSTALL.md FEniCS/basix#370

(Will update this issue with more comments as I proceed).

mscroggs · 2022-02-02T10:15:11Z

@whedon generate pdf

mscroggs · 2022-02-02T10:15:36Z

We fixed a few typos in the paper, so I'm re-generating it

whedon · 2022-02-02T10:15:44Z

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

jedbrown · 2022-03-13T01:17:04Z

@tisaac @wence- 👋 How are your reviews going?

wence- · 2022-03-14T10:28:59Z

Slowly, but I have no commitments from close of play Friday, so next week?

jedbrown · 2022-04-25T13:16:44Z

@tisaac @wence- 👋 Please let us know how your review is going and when you might be able to continue your reviews.

wence- · 2022-04-28T15:49:24Z

First off, many apologies to both the authors and JOSS for taking such a long time to review here. I had already taken a long time, but a break between jobs where I thought I would get this done needed to be more handsoff than I had anticipated. So I am only now getting round to cleaning the slate.

That said, here are my comments on this paper/submission.

From a software/documentation point of view, I have no real qualms. The two minor installation issues I mentioned above were swiftly fixed. One very minor thing is that the frontpage of the docs doesn't do quite a job at summarising the point of basix as the top of the README on the github project page. Replicating this information by hand is probably a bad idea but perhaps it can be incorporated programmatically in future docs builds (I don't think this is a sufficient issue to requiring fixing for the paper, but can open an issue to track it if that is normal policy).

From the paper point of view, I think that the survey of related software is a little bit weak. I agree that most finite element libraries do not separate the element library from the rest of the software (and hence there are often not publications specifically about tabulation), however, it would be useful to provide a short summary of alternate approaches and how that in basix differs. The paper does a good job contrasting with FIAT, but in many ways basix provides effectively the same style of interface as FIAT (namely tabulation of the transformation matrix at a set of points). I think it would be good to contrast with approaches in other popular libraries such as DUNE, deal, NGSolve, MFEM. As a few pointers:

The NGSolve interface to finite elements is described in https://www.asc.tuwien.ac.at/~schoeberl/wiki/publications/ngs-cpp11.pdf
The DUNE approach dune-localfunctions is described in Chapter 8 of https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-59702-3
In deal.ii the description in section 3.3 of http://doi.org/10.1145/1268776.1268779 is still relevant I think (augmented with the documentation at https://dealii.org/current/doxygen/deal.II/group__feaccess.html)
For MFEM I am a little less sure, but I think a combination of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2020.06.009 and https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02945 cover things (perhaps @jedbrown can confirm)

I agree that you don't want to recreate too much from the longer arxiv paper, but I think the paper would be improved by a little bit of discussion here.

One thing that I think should probably be addressed is whether there is a development track towards efficient high-order finite elements that expose structure (typically tensor-product of some kind), or if this is a direction the library intends to go at all. I see there is an open issue on the interpolation part of this.

Thanks!

tisaac · 2022-04-29T14:52:38Z

I will finish my review by next Thursday, apologies for the delay

tisaac · 2022-05-02T14:03:36Z

@jedbrown Was my invitation revoked?

jedbrown · 2022-05-02T14:09:11Z

Ah, you can use the new system now. Please comment with the one line command

@editorialbot generate my checklist

tisaac · 2022-05-02T14:24:03Z

Review checklist for @tisaac

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/FEniCS/basix?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@mscroggs) 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

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 and who the target audience is?
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?

mscroggs · 2022-05-05T09:55:12Z

@wence- Thanks for your comments. We've made some changes to the paper, I'll rebuild it here once the CI has finished running and I've merged it.

One very minor thing is that the frontpage of the docs doesn't do quite a job at summarising the point of basix as the top of the README on the github project page. Replicating this information by hand is probably a bad idea but perhaps it can be incorporated programmatically in future docs builds (I don't think this is a sufficient issue to requiring fixing for the paper, but can open an issue to track it if that is normal policy).

I've made the docs builder copy this info when building the website docs (FEniCS/basix#484)

From the paper point of view, I think that the survey of related software is a little bit weak. I agree that most finite element libraries do not separate the element library from the rest of the software (and hence there are often not publications specifically about tabulation), however, it would be useful to provide a short summary of alternate approaches and how that in basix differs. The paper does a good job contrasting with FIAT, but in many ways basix provides effectively the same style of interface as FIAT (namely tabulation of the transformation matrix at a set of points). I think it would be good to contrast with approaches in other popular libraries such as DUNE, deal, NGSolve, MFEM.

Thanks for the suggested references, this was very helpful. We've added us much information as we can about other libraries based on what they've written in papers and docs (see changes in FEniCS/basix#481).

I agree that you don't want to recreate too much from the longer arxiv paper, but I think the paper would be improved by a little bit of discussion here.

We've added a little bit more to the paragraph on this (see changes in FEniCS/basix#481)

One thing that I think should probably be addressed is whether there is a development track towards efficient high-order finite elements that expose structure (typically tensor-product of some kind), or if this is a direction the library intends to go at all. I see there is an open issue on the interpolation part of this.

We've added a paragraph on this (see changes in FEniCS/basix#481)

mscroggs · 2022-05-05T10:10:07Z

@whedon generate pdf

editorialbot · 2022-05-05T10:10:08Z

My name is now @editorialbot

editorialbot · 2022-05-06T09:12:00Z

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

wence- · 2022-05-13T15:29:00Z

@jedbrown I am happy with the current manuscript and checklist; @tisaac I think you are too?

tisaac · 2022-05-13T15:30:28Z

@wence- yep!

jedbrown · 2022-05-18T22:18:58Z

Wonderful! I just notice one minor copy edit.

The majority of the Basix’s functionality

remove second of "the" or say "Most of Basix's functionality"

After making this change, could you:

Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here.
Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g., figshare, an institutional repository)
Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) has the correct metadata. This includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it). You may also add the authors' ORCID.
Please list the DOI of the archived version here.

I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

mscroggs · 2022-05-19T12:14:29Z

@wence- and @tisaac: Thanks for reviewing this!

@jedbrown. The release tag is joss (https://github.com/FEniCS/basix/releases/tag/joss). The DOI of the archive is 10.6084/m9.figshare.19794268.v1.

jedbrown · 2022-05-19T13:27:03Z

@editorialbot set joss as version

editorialbot · 2022-05-19T13:27:05Z

Done! version is now joss

jedbrown · 2022-05-19T13:27:53Z

@editorialbot set 10.6084/m9.figshare.19794268.v1 as archive

editorialbot · 2022-05-19T13:27:57Z

Done! Archive is now 10.6084/m9.figshare.19794268.v1

jedbrown · 2022-05-19T13:56:14Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2022-05-19T13:56:15Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2022-05-19T13:56:20Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/1039813.1039820 is OK
- 10.11588/ans.2015.100.20553 is OK
- 10.1145/3524456 is OK
- 10.1145/2566630 is OK
- 10.1007/BF01396415 is OK
- 10.1007/BF01389668 is OK
- 10.1007/BF01389710 is OK
- 10.1051/m2an/197307R300331 is OK
- 10.1007/BF02733251 is OK
- 10.1007/s00211-011-0394-z is OK
- 10.1007/s10208-011-9087-3 is OK
- 10.1090/S0025-5718-2013-02783-4 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-23099-8_11 is OK
- 10.1145/1731022.1731030 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2009.10.027 is OK
- 10.1137/19M1288723 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03556 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-59702-3_8 is OK
- 10.1145/1268776.1268779 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2020.06.009 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02879 is OK
- 10.1145/2590830 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2022-05-19T13:57:28Z

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

Element doi: [facet 'pattern'] The value  is not accepted by the pattern '10\.[0-9]{4,9}/.{1,200}'.

mscroggs · 2022-05-19T14:04:12Z

Looks like one of the references in the paper has an extra set of curly braces around the DOI, which is causing an issue. FEniCS/basix#511 will hopefully fix this

jedbrown · 2022-05-19T14:05:14Z

Thanks for diagnosing.

mscroggs · 2022-05-19T14:19:27Z

@jedbrown Correction is merged so it should be ready for another attempt now

jedbrown · 2022-05-19T14:20:40Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2022-05-19T14:20:43Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2022-05-19T14:20:49Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/1039813.1039820 is OK
- 10.11588/ans.2015.100.20553 is OK
- 10.1145/3524456 is OK
- 10.1145/2566630 is OK
- 10.1007/BF01396415 is OK
- 10.1007/BF01389668 is OK
- 10.1007/BF01389710 is OK
- 10.1051/m2an/197307R300331 is OK
- 10.1007/BF02733251 is OK
- 10.1007/s00211-011-0394-z is OK
- 10.1007/s10208-011-9087-3 is OK
- 10.1090/S0025-5718-2013-02783-4 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-23099-8_11 is OK
- 10.1145/1731022.1731030 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2009.10.027 is OK
- 10.1137/19M1288723 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03556 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-59702-3_8 is OK
- 10.1145/1268776.1268779 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2020.06.009 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02879 is OK
- 10.1145/2590830 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2022-05-19T14:22:22Z

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

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#3223

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#3223, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

arfon · 2022-05-25T14:28:38Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2022-05-25T14:28:40Z

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

editorialbot · 2022-05-25T14:30:13Z

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

editorialbot · 2022-05-25T14:30:14Z

🚨🚨🚨 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 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.03982 joss-papers#3229
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03982
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

arfon · 2022-05-25T16:17:29Z

@tisaac, @wence- – many thanks for your reviews here and to @jedbrown for editing this submission! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you ✨

@mscroggs – your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS ⚡🚀💥

editorialbot · 2022-05-25T16:17:31Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.03982/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03982)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03982">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03982/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03982/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03982

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://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

whedon added C C++ CMake review labels Dec 8, 2021

whedon assigned jedbrown Dec 8, 2021

whedon mentioned this issue Dec 8, 2021

[PRE REVIEW]: Basix: a runtime finite element basis evaluation library #3878

Closed

whedon assigned wence- Dec 9, 2021

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label May 19, 2022

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels May 25, 2022

arfon closed this as completed May 25, 2022

[REVIEW]: Basix: a runtime finite element basis evaluation library #3982

[REVIEW]: Basix: a runtime finite element basis evaluation library #3982

Comments

whedon commented Dec 8, 2021 • edited by editorialbot Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Review checklist for @tisaac

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @wence-

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

whedon commented Dec 8, 2021

whedon commented Dec 8, 2021

whedon commented Dec 8, 2021

whedon commented Dec 8, 2021

whedon commented Dec 8, 2021

jedbrown commented Dec 8, 2021

whedon commented Dec 22, 2021

whedon commented Dec 22, 2021

wence- commented Jan 13, 2022 • edited Loading

mscroggs commented Feb 2, 2022

mscroggs commented Feb 2, 2022

whedon commented Feb 2, 2022

jedbrown commented Mar 13, 2022

wence- commented Mar 14, 2022

jedbrown commented Apr 25, 2022

wence- commented Apr 28, 2022

tisaac commented Apr 29, 2022

tisaac commented May 2, 2022

jedbrown commented May 2, 2022

tisaac commented May 2, 2022 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @tisaac

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

mscroggs commented May 5, 2022 • edited Loading

mscroggs commented May 5, 2022

editorialbot commented May 5, 2022

editorialbot commented May 6, 2022

wence- commented May 13, 2022

tisaac commented May 13, 2022

jedbrown commented May 18, 2022 • edited by mscroggs Loading

mscroggs commented May 19, 2022

jedbrown commented May 19, 2022

editorialbot commented May 19, 2022

jedbrown commented May 19, 2022

editorialbot commented May 19, 2022

jedbrown commented May 19, 2022

editorialbot commented May 19, 2022

editorialbot commented May 19, 2022

editorialbot commented May 19, 2022

mscroggs commented May 19, 2022

jedbrown commented May 19, 2022

mscroggs commented May 19, 2022 • edited Loading

jedbrown commented May 19, 2022

editorialbot commented May 19, 2022

editorialbot commented May 19, 2022

editorialbot commented May 19, 2022

arfon commented May 25, 2022

editorialbot commented May 25, 2022

editorialbot commented May 25, 2022

editorialbot commented May 25, 2022

arfon commented May 25, 2022

editorialbot commented May 25, 2022

whedon commented Dec 8, 2021 •

edited by editorialbot

Loading

wence- commented Jan 13, 2022 •

edited

Loading

tisaac commented May 2, 2022 •

edited

Loading

mscroggs commented May 5, 2022 •

edited

Loading

jedbrown commented May 18, 2022 •

edited by mscroggs

Loading

mscroggs commented May 19, 2022 •

edited

Loading