Skip to content
Please note that GitHub no longer supports your web browser.

We recommend upgrading to the latest Google Chrome or Firefox.

Learn more

/ joss-reviews

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.

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]: CaPS: Casimir Effect in the Plane-Sphere Geometry #2011

Open
whedon opened this issue Jan 13, 2020 · 6 comments
Open

[REVIEW]: CaPS: Casimir Effect in the Plane-Sphere Geometry #2011

whedon opened this issue Jan 13, 2020 · 6 comments
Assignees
@danielskatz
Labels
review

Comments

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator

@whedon whedon commented Jan 13, 2020 •
edited by jwuttke

Submitting author: @michael-hartmann (Michael Hartmann)
Repository: https://github.com/michael-hartmann/caps/
Version: 0.5
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewer: @eschnett, @jwuttke
Archive: Pending

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/62338dfc973364495fd30be48361f678"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/62338dfc973364495fd30be48361f678/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/62338dfc973364495fd30be48361f678/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/62338dfc973364495fd30be48361f678)

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

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

  1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
  2. 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 @danielskatz know.

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨

Review checklist for @eschnett

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 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 (@michael-hartmann) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

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: Do the authors clearly state 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 @jwuttke

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 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 (@michael-hartmann) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

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: Do the authors clearly state 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?
@whedon whedon added the review label Jan 13, 2020
@whedon whedon mentioned this issue Jan 13, 2020
Open
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jan 13, 2020

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

⭐️ 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:

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

watching

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

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

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jan 13, 2020 

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.crhy.2011.05.004 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.211801 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.63.033402 is OK
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238743.001.0001 is OK
- 10.1016/j.crhy.2012.04.008 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.160403 is OK
- 10.1088/1367-2630/8/10/243 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.170403 is OK
- 10.1007/s10915-013-9714-z is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01167 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.91.033203 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevE.92.042125 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.043901 is OK
- 10.1088/1402-4896/aae34e is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.080403 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.100.081406 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevA.100.052511 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jan 13, 2020

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jan 13, 2020

HI @eschnett & @jwuttke - thanks for agreeing to review this submission!

Your job is to review the paper and the repository according to the criteria in your review list in the first comment in this issue, and check things off as you find them satisfactory. If you see things that you think need to be changed, open an issue in the source repository (and add a note about this review issue to link them to here), or if they are small, just state them here in this issue.

Please also read the first 2 comments in this issue carefully.

Let me know if you have any questions.
@jwuttke

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator

@jwuttke jwuttke commented Jan 13, 2020

I submitted 7 issues. Otherwise I am very satisfied with project & paper, and I recommend acceptance in JOSS.
@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jan 13, 2020

Thanks!

Can you put the URL of this issue (#2011) in the issues you opened? This helps us view them from here, where we can see if they are open or closed, for example
This was referenced Jan 13, 2020
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@danielskatz danielskatz

Labels
review
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
3 participants
@whedon @danielskatz @jwuttke
You can’t perform that action at this time.