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

[PRE REVIEW]: CaPS: Casimir Effect in the Plane-Sphere Geometry #1907

Open
whedon opened this issue Nov 21, 2019 · 36 comments
Open

[PRE REVIEW]: CaPS: Casimir Effect in the Plane-Sphere Geometry #1907

whedon opened this issue Nov 21, 2019 · 36 comments
Assignees
@eschnett @danielskatz @jwuttke
Labels
C CMake Python pre-review

Comments

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator

@whedon whedon commented Nov 21, 2019 •
edited

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

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @michael-hartmann. Currently, there isn't an JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@michael-hartmann if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands
@whedon whedon added the pre-review label Nov 21, 2019
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Nov 21, 2019

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

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

What happens now?

This submission is currently in a pre-review state which means we are waiting for an editor to be assigned and for them to find some reviewers for your submission. This may take anything between a few hours to a couple of weeks. Thanks for your patience 😸

You can help the editor by looking at this list of potential reviewers to identify individuals who might be able to review your submission (please start at the bottom of the list). Also, feel free to suggest individuals who are not on this list by mentioning their GitHub handles here.
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Nov 21, 2019 

Attempting to check references...
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Nov 21, 2019 

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Nov 21, 2019 


OK DOIs

- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238743.001.0001 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

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Nov 21, 2019

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

@kthyng

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@kthyng kthyng commented Nov 21, 2019

Hi @michael-hartmann and thanks for your submission. Please add to your paper to include:

A summary describing the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience.

and possibly also

A clear Statement of Need that illustrates the research purpose of the software

which is hard to discern from this outside perspective currently. We want to see a clear research use stated clearly.
@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Dec 2, 2019

I'm going to mark this as paused for now - @michael-hartmann, please let us know when you have addressed the previous points.
@danielskatz danielskatz added the paused label Dec 2, 2019
@michael-hartmann

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@michael-hartmann michael-hartmann commented Dec 16, 2019

@whedon generate pdf
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Dec 16, 2019 

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Dec 16, 2019

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

@michael-hartmann

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@michael-hartmann michael-hartmann commented Dec 16, 2019

@kthyng, @danielskatz

Thank you for your suggestions.

We have addressed the previous points by (i) extending the introduction for a non-specific audience, and (ii) adding references to experiments that have used data generated with our software.

We hope that the review can now continue. :-)
@michael-hartmann

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@michael-hartmann michael-hartmann commented Dec 18, 2019

@whedon check references
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Dec 18, 2019 

Attempting to check references...
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Dec 18, 2019 


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
@danielskatz danielskatz removed the paused label Jan 7, 2020
@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jan 7, 2020

Sorry for the delay in getting back to this - our rotating associate editor-in-chief system showed some flaws over the holidays
@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jan 7, 2020

@whedon assign @danielskatz as editor
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jan 7, 2020

OK, the editor is @danielskatz
@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jan 7, 2020

@michael-hartmann - do you have any suggestions for potential reviewers? If so, please mention them here in this thread, without @-tagging them. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission. Please take a look and see if you see any potentially-applicable reviewers.
@michael-hartmann

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@michael-hartmann michael-hartmann commented Jan 7, 2020

@danielskatz Thank you for your reply.

I had a look at the list of JOSS reviewers and think jochym and jwuttke are good candidates. Both have a background in theoretical physics, experience in scattering (might be helpful), and listed C among their programming languages.
@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jan 7, 2020 •
edited

👋 @jochym - Would you be willing to review this for JOSS?
@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jan 7, 2020

👋 @jwuttke - Would you be willing to review this for JOSS?
@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jan 9, 2020

👋 @eschnett & @stevenrbrandt - would either of you be willing to review this, or have suggestions for others who might?
@jwuttke

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator

@jwuttke jwuttke commented Jan 9, 2020

What are reviewers supposed to do?
@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jan 9, 2020

Sorry, I thought you were familiar with JOSS - see https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html for general info about the reviewing process, and https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html for the specific review criteria. In brief, a JOSS review is of the short paper and the software repository, and it is open and collaborative, seeking to improve the paper and software to the point where they can be accepted.
@eschnett

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator

@eschnett eschnett commented Jan 10, 2020

@danielskatz I accept.
@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jan 10, 2020

@jwuttke - are you willing to be a reviewer for this?
@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jan 10, 2020

@whedon assign @eschnett as reviewer
@whedon whedon assigned danielskatz and eschnett and unassigned danielskatz Jan 10, 2020
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jan 10, 2020

OK, @eschnett is now a reviewer
@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jan 10, 2020

Thanks @eschnett - we'll start the review once we get another reviewer assigned
@jwuttke

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator

@jwuttke jwuttke commented Jan 13, 2020

@jwuttke - are you willing to be a reviewer for this?

ok, I'll give it a try
@jwuttke

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator

@jwuttke jwuttke commented Jan 13, 2020

will we get some more instructions, or shall we just start, following the guidelines linked above?
@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jan 13, 2020

I'll add you, then create an issue for the review, which will have instructions
@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jan 13, 2020

@whedon add @jwuttke as reviewer
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jan 13, 2020

OK, @jwuttke is now a reviewer
@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Jan 13, 2020

@whedon start review
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Jan 13, 2020

OK, I've started the review over in #2011. Feel free to close this issue now!
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@eschnett eschnett

@danielskatz danielskatz

@jwuttke jwuttke

Labels
C CMake Python pre-review
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
6 participants
@whedon @kthyng @danielskatz @michael-hartmann @jwuttke @eschnett
You can’t perform that action at this time.