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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[REVIEW]: pyforce: Python Framework for data-driven model Order Reduction of multi-physiCs problEms #6950

Open
editorialbot opened this issue Jul 2, 2024 · 17 comments
Open

[REVIEW]: pyforce: Python Framework for data-driven model Order Reduction of multi-physiCs problEms #6950

editorialbot opened this issue Jul 2, 2024 · 17 comments
Assignees
@Fei-Tao
Labels
review Track: 3 (PE) Physics and Engineering

Comments

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator

editorialbot commented Jul 2, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Submitting author: @Steriva (Stefano Riva)
Repository: https://github.com/ERMETE-Lab/ROSE-pyforce
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.1.2
Editor: @Fei-Tao
Reviewers: @ShimingYIN, @damar-wicaksono, @alberto743
Archive: Pending

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b3bc9aaecef1a8e0919310833eb76c2c"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b3bc9aaecef1a8e0919310833eb76c2c/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b3bc9aaecef1a8e0919310833eb76c2c/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b3bc9aaecef1a8e0919310833eb76c2c)

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

@ShimingYIN & @damar-wicaksono & @alberto743, 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 @Fei-Tao 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 @damar-wicaksono

📝 Checklist for @alberto743

📝 Checklist for @ShimingYIN
@editorialbot editorialbot added review Track: 3 (PE) Physics and Engineering labels Jul 2, 2024
@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 editorialbot mentioned this issue Jul 2, 2024
Closed
@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author 

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2024.113105 is OK
- 10.1063/1.168744 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2401.07300 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10447666 is OK
- 10.1515/9783110671490 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1905.05982 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cma.2015.01.018 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cma.2022.115773 is OK
- 10.1002/nme.4747 is OK
- 10.1016/j.anucene.2022.109538 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.13 s (569.8 files/s, 166008.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          29           1335           2238           2938
Jupyter Notebook                17              0           9305           2921
SVG                              1              0              0            708
TeX                              2             41              0            378
Markdown                         4             86              0            270
GLSL                             3             34             73            129
reStructuredText                10             86            166            104
YAML                             3             11             12             80
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
Bourne Shell                     1              0              1              5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            72           1605          11803           7568
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    38	Stefano Riva
    35	Steriva
     5	Neko-tan

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 663

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

@alberto743
Copy link

alberto743 commented Jul 8, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Review checklist for @alberto743

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/ERMETE-Lab/ROSE-pyforce?
  • 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 (@Steriva) 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?

@damar-wicaksono
Copy link

damar-wicaksono commented Jul 10, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Review checklist for @damar-wicaksono

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/ERMETE-Lab/ROSE-pyforce?
  • 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 (@Steriva) 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?

@ShimingYIN
Copy link

ShimingYIN commented Jul 11, 2024 •
edited by editorialbot
Loading

Review checklist for @ShimingYIN

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/ERMETE-Lab/ROSE-pyforce?
  • 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 (@Steriva) 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?

@alberto743
Copy link

Fix license text: ERMETE-Lab/ROSE-pyforce#6

@Steriva
Copy link

Steriva commented Jul 26, 2024 •
edited
Loading

License text has been fixed with pull request #7

This was referenced Aug 9, 2024
Open
Closed
Closed
@damar-wicaksono
Copy link

@editorialbot commands

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Hello @damar-wicaksono, 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

@damar-wicaksono
Copy link

@editorialbot generate pdf

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

@alberto743
Copy link

@Fei-Tao Sorry, I am very late with this review. I hope to complete in the next weeks.

@Fei-Tao
Copy link

Fei-Tao commented Oct 14, 2024 via email

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@Fei-Tao Fei-Tao

Labels
review Track: 3 (PE) Physics and Engineering
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
6 participants
@alberto743 @damar-wicaksono @Steriva @editorialbot @ShimingYIN @Fei-Tao