[PRE REVIEW]: GASTLI: A Python package for coupled interior–atmosphere modelling of volatile-rich planets

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @lorenaacuna (Lorena Acuña)
Repository: https://github.com/lorenaacuna/GASTLI
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main
Version: v0.9
Editor: @JBorrow
Reviewers: @ivalaginja, @MartianColonist
Managing EiC: Dan Foreman-Mackey

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c7f7fcd6e5c8c909cf237eb5aff9d0c4"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c7f7fcd6e5c8c909cf237eb5aff9d0c4/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c7f7fcd6e5c8c909cf237eb5aff9d0c4/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c7f7fcd6e5c8c909cf237eb5aff9d0c4)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @lorenaacuna. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@lorenaacuna 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

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.05 s (1072.8 files/s, 285842.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fortran 95                      10           1951           1731           3335
Python                          22            779           1038           1627
TeX                              1             36              0            557
reStructuredText                 8            357           1174            207
Meson                            1             43             18            153
Fortran 90                       2             43             18             79
Markdown                         1             18              0             46
YAML                             2              4              4             29
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
TOML                             1              2              0             18
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            50           3245           3991           6086
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   173	lorenaacuna

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 is OK
- 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 is OK
- 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stac1133 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stab2250 is OK
- 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/180 is OK
- 10.3390/atmos10110664 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2402.19466 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201833873 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/1 is OK
- 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/64 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/105 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/47 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201629800 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8205/831/2/L16 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aa965a is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9530 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/abfa99 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac66e2 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/202039885 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/202142374 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/202245736 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/202243207 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201833963 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/abfc48 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2302.07902 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/202038367 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2406.10032 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/80 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Structure interne et minéralogie des exoplanètes t...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Sesame: the Los Alamos National Laboratory equatio...

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1383

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

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

[dfm]

@lorenaacuna — Thanks for your submission! All the suitable JOSS editors are currently working at capacity so I'm going to "waitlist" this review until an editor with the relevant expertise is available to take it on. Thanks for your patience!

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

BurnMan -- a Python toolkit for planetary geophysics, geochemistry and thermodynamics
Submitting author: @bobmyhill
Handling editor: @jedbrown (Active)
Reviewers: @simonwmatthews, @kaylai
Similarity score: 0.6924

ExoTiC-ISM: A Python package for marginalised exoplanet transit parameters across a grid of systematic instrument models
Submitting author: @ivalaginja
Handling editor: @xuanxu (Active)
Reviewers: @hayesla, @mattpitkin
Similarity score: 0.6789

SWAMPE: A Shallow-Water Atmospheric Model in Python for Exoplanets
Submitting author: @kathlandgren
Handling editor: @dfm (Active)
Reviewers: @mark-hammond, @imalsky
Similarity score: 0.6766

Foam: A Python package for forward asteroseismic modelling of gravity modes
Submitting author: @MichielsenM
Handling editor: @warrickball (Active)
Reviewers: @AnkitBarik, @ashleychontos
Similarity score: 0.6708

AMAT: A Python package for rapid conceptual design of aerocapture and atmospheric Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) missions in a Jupyter environment
Submitting author: @athulpg007
Handling editor: @jbytecode (Active)
Reviewers: @astrojuanlu, @helgee
Similarity score: 0.6611

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[JBorrow]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @JBorrow is now the editor

[JBorrow]

Hi @lorenaacuna; I have some space in my schedule now so I can take on this as editor. We will first start by searching for two reviewers, and then get started on the review. If you have anyone in mind who would be a good reviewer of this package, please let me know!

[JBorrow]

Hi @tdsandnes and @jkeger; would either (or both!) of you be interested in reviewing this package for the Journal of Open Source Software? Our reviewers guide is available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html; I'm also happy to answer any questions you have.

[jkeger]

Hi Josh, I'm afraid I'm too swamped at the moment, which might well be the same for Tom, but Tom I recommend checking what's involved as it'd be great for you to be in the reviewer position every so often. Best, Jacob

…

________________________________ From: Josh Borrow ***@***.***> Sent: 30 August 2024 06:52 To: openjournals/joss-reviews ***@***.***> Cc: KEGERREIS, JACOB A. ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [openjournals/joss-reviews] [PRE REVIEW]: GASTLI: A Python package for coupled interior–atmosphere modelling of volatile-rich planets (Issue #7096) [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi @tdsandnes<https://github.com/tdsandnes> and @jkeger<https://github.com/jkeger>; would either (or both!) of you be interested in reviewing this package for the Journal of Open Source Software? Our reviewers guide is available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html; I'm also happy to answer any questions you have. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#7096 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJBHXLLSIQS44WP5ZAKAPTDZUB2I3AVCNFSM6AAAAABMJAXZPSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGMRRGMZTCMZUGM>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[tdsandnes]

Hi Josh, I'm in the middle of crunch time for my thesis, so am afraid I'll have to give this a pass. Best, Tom

…

On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 2:52 PM Josh Borrow ***@***.***> wrote: Hi @tdsandnes <https://github.com/tdsandnes> and @jkeger <https://github.com/jkeger>; would either (or both!) of you be interested in reviewing this package for the Journal of Open Source Software? Our reviewers guide is available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html; I'm also happy to answer any questions you have. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#7096 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ARD6UF5VWSTG2BJM2C5GGSDZUB2I5AVCNFSM6AAAAABMJAXZPSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGMRRGMZTCMZUGM> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[lorenaacuna]

@JBorrow thanks so much for taking this as editor. May I suggest the main authors of the two JOSS published papers that are the closest to our submission: Robert Myhill and Iva Laginja? If they are not available, I can also suggest the former reviewers of these two papers. I can also suggest Evert Nasedkin in the reviewer data base.

[JBorrow]

Hi @bobmyhill, @ivalaginja, and @kathlandgren: I found you as a previous corresponding authors for JOSS and think you'd be an excellent fit to review this paper. Would you be interested in that? You can find our reviewers guide here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

[ivalaginja]

@JBorrow I am willing to be a reviewer for this submission!

[JBorrow]

@editorialbot add @ivalaginja as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@ivalaginja added to the reviewers list!

[kathlandgren]

Unfortunately, I have to decline this opportunity. Please keep me in mind for future submissions!

[JBorrow]

Hi @MartianColonist, I found you in the JOSS reviewers database. Would you be interested in reviewing this submission? You can find our reviewers guide here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

[MartianColonist]

Thanks for the invite @JBorrow!
I'm happy to review this JOSS paper. My formal review will happen after the JWST deadline (October 16), but I'll endeavour to offer some big picture feedback before that.

[JBorrow]

@editorialbot add @MartianColonist as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@MartianColonist added to the reviewers list!

[JBorrow]

Excellent, thank you! We will start the review over in another thread. Thanks both!

[JBorrow]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #7288.