Skip to content

/ 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]: CarrierCapture.jl: Anharmonic Carrier Capture #2102

Open
whedon opened this issue Feb 13, 2020 · 5 comments
Open

[REVIEW]: CarrierCapture.jl: Anharmonic Carrier Capture #2102

whedon opened this issue Feb 13, 2020 · 5 comments
Assignees
@utf @danielskatz
Labels
review

Comments

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator

@whedon whedon commented Feb 13, 2020

Submitting author: @frssp (Sunghyun Kim)
Repository: https://github.com/WMD-group/CarrierCapture.jl
Version: v0.1
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewer: @utf, @taylor-a-barnes
Archive: Pending

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/389d1f1765402a27d13830b691bf13d8"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/389d1f1765402a27d13830b691bf13d8/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/389d1f1765402a27d13830b691bf13d8/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/389d1f1765402a27d13830b691bf13d8)

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

@utf & @taylor-a-barnes, 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 @utf

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 (@frssp) 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 @taylor-a-barnes

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 (@frssp) 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 Feb 13, 2020
@whedon whedon mentioned this issue Feb 13, 2020
Closed
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Feb 13, 2020

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @utf, @taylor-a-barnes 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 Feb 13, 2020 

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/s41578-018-0026-7 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.86.253 is OK
- 10.1088/0034-4885/44/12/001 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.90.075202 is OK
- 10.1039/C8TA10130B is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.100.041202 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 Feb 13, 2020

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Feb 13, 2020

👋 @utf & @taylor-a-barnes - again, thanks very much for agreeing to this review. Please read the comments above carefully, particularly in terms of accepting the invitation to be able to use the checkboxes, and in terms of not getting unwanted JOSS notifications.
@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Feb 13, 2020 •
edited

Your job now is to examine the paper and the software, and to check off the items on your list that you can, and to explain what blocks you from checking off other items, either here if they are brief, or in new issues in the source repo if they are more complex. (If you do open issues in the source repo, please mention this review issue in those issues so that we can see them here as well.)

We expect that the review will be done in a couple of weeks, at most, or at least it will get to a list of blocking items in that timeframe.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@utf utf

@danielskatz danielskatz

Labels
review
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
3 participants
@whedon @danielskatz @utf
You can’t perform that action at this time.