[REVIEW]: Simulation of fracture and damage with Peridynamics.jl

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @kaipartmann (Kai Partmann)
Repository: https://github.com/kaipartmann/Peridynamics.jl
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper_juliacon_2023
Version: v0.3.3
Editor: @luraess
Reviewers: @ranocha
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/b5f2635daed8de1734d967149f046ee4"><img src="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/b5f2635daed8de1734d967149f046ee4/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/b5f2635daed8de1734d967149f046ee4/status.svg)](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/b5f2635daed8de1734d967149f046ee4)

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

@ranocha & @HaoZeke, 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 @luraess 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 @ranocha

[editorialbot]

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 source files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1007/s42102-018-0004-x is OK
- 10.3934/matersci.2022049 is OK
- 10.1002/pamm.202200217 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmps.2019.06.016 is OK
- 10.1177/1081286518803411 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03020 is OK
- 10.1016/j.tafmec.2010.08.001 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4614-8465-3 is OK
- 10.1007/s10704-023-00726-7 is OK
- 10.1007/s42102-023-00100-0 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cma.2021.114085 is OK
- 10.1016/S0022-5096(99)00029-0 is OK
- 10.1007/s10659-007-9125-1 is OK
- 10.1002/pamm.202200249 is OK
- 10.1007/s42102-019-00021-x is OK
- 10.1016/j.softx.2023.101322 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Peridynamic computations of wave propagation and r...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Peridynamic computations for thin elastic rods

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.01 s (806.4 files/s, 223665.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TeX                              8            251            194           2470
Ruby                             1              8              4             45
Markdown                         1             20              0             37
YAML                             1              0              0             22
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            11            279            198           2574
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   292	Kai Partmann
   126	kfrb
    36	kaipartmann
    27	Manuel Dienst
     4	=
     2	CompatHelper Julia
     2	K. Weinberg
     1	Kerstin Weinberg
     1	dependabot[bot]

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.tex is 927

🔴 Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[editorialbot]

License info:

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

[editorialbot]

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

[ranocha]

Review checklist for @ranocha

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JuliaCon conflict of interest policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JCon for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JuliaCon code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/kaipartmann/Peridynamics.jl?
• 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 (@kaipartmann) 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

Paper format

• Authors: Does the paper.tex file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• 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?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Content

• Context: is the scientific context motivating the work correctly presented?
• Methodology: is the approach taken in the work justified, presented with enough details and reference to reproduce it?
• Results: are the results presented and compared to approaches with similar goals?

[ranocha]

I have created the issues kaipartmann/Peridynamics.jl#167 and kaipartmann/Peridynamics.jl#168 for this review. I think the paper can be accepted after major revisions.

[luraess]

Thanks @ranocha for providinga review of the article draft. A minor remark wrt the "statement of need"; we are currently revising the guidelines for that and do no longer require an explicit section about it. We leave it up to the authors to state and motivate where appropriate the need for their work.

[kaipartmann]

Hello together,
I made some changes addressing the review comments in kaipartmann/Peridynamics.jl#168.
Again, thank you for the valuable feedback!
@ranocha, @HaoZeke, please let me know if you have further remarks on these changes.

[kaipartmann]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[luraess]

@HaoZeke - when you find some time, and ideally in the coming two weeks, please generate your reviewer checklist and provide some feedback regarding the manuscript submission such that we do not stall the revision process 🙏

[ranocha]

kaipartmann/Peridynamics.jl#167 is close to be closed. When that's done, a new release has been made, and the paper branch has been updated, I am fine accepting the paper. Thanks to @kaipartmann and collaborators for a nice contribution to the open-source ecosystem 👍

[luraess]

@HaoZeke please give any update, whether you want to (i) continue the revision process (and in this case ideally do it asap), or (ii) drop out. Both are fine, but please respond such that we could take further actions accordingly. Thank you!

[luraess]

Thanks for providing your feedback @ranocha ! Let's wait on @HaoZeke 's reply to further proceed.

[kaipartmann]

I closed the issue and included the current release in the paper branch. Thanks to @ranocha, for your help and invaluable feedback!

[kaipartmann]

@editorialbot set v0.3.3 as version

[editorialbot]

I'm sorry @kaipartmann, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do.

[kaipartmann]

@luraess, I've updated the software version. Please use the editorial bot command to update it. It seems only you have the permission to do so. Thank you!

[luraess]

@editorialbot set v0.3.3 as version

[editorialbot]

Done! version is now v0.3.3

[luraess]

@HaoZeke given that I did not hear anything back from you, I will remove you as reviewer for this submission.

[luraess]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @luraess, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Add to this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot add @username as reviewer

# Remove from this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot remove @username from reviewers

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Assign a user as the editor of this submission
@editorialbot assign @username as editor

# Remove the editor assigned to this submission
@editorialbot remove editor

# Remind an author, a reviewer or the editor to return to a review after a 
# certain period of time (supported units days and weeks)
@editorialbot remind @reviewer in 2 weeks

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for version
@editorialbot set v1.0.0 as version

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set juliacon-paper as branch

# Set a value for repository
@editorialbot set https://github.com/organization/repo as repository

# Set a value for the archive DOI
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.6861996 as archive

# Mention the EiCs for the correct track
@editorialbot ping track-eic

# Reject paper
@editorialbot reject

# Withdraw paper
@editorialbot withdraw

# Invite an editor to edit a submission (sending them an email)
@editorialbot invite @(.*) as editor

# 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

# Recommends the submission for acceptance
@editorialbot recommend-accept

# Accept and publish the paper
@editorialbot accept

# Update data on an accepted/published paper
@editorialbot reaccept

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Flag submission with questionable scope
@editorialbot query scope

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

# Creates a post-review checklist with editor and authors tasks
@editorialbot create post-review checklist

# Open the review issue
@editorialbot start review

[luraess]

@editorialbot remove @HaoZeke from reviewers

[editorialbot]

@HaoZeke removed from the reviewers list!

[luraess]

@kaipartmann would you be able to provide me a short list of potential reviewers given that I had to drop one. Given the detailed review provided by @ranocha a second review would most likely be swiftly completed.