[REVIEW]: A Python package for homogenization procedures in fiber reinforced polymers #5295

editorialbot · 2023-03-23T09:54:09Z

Submitting author: @Extraweich (Nicolas Christ)
Repository: https://github.com/Extraweich/homopy
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.1.0
Editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Reviewers: @likask, @nicoguaro, @lizarett
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8124344

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3ff6841e9a89fc91a0578df9ca677179"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3ff6841e9a89fc91a0578df9ca677179/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3ff6841e9a89fc91a0578df9ca677179/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3ff6841e9a89fc91a0578df9ca677179)

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

@likask & @nicoguaro & @lizarett, 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 @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman 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 @likask

📝 Checklist for @nicoguaro

📝 Checklist for @lizarett

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

editorialbot · 2023-03-23T09:54:12Z

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's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2023-03-23T09:54:14Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.22 s (355.0 files/s, 214181.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVG                              8              3             51          22133
JavaScript                      14           2420           2485           9106
HTML                            16            544             48           4087
Python                          10            291            617            879
Jupyter Notebook                 5              0           1795            788
CSS                              5            187             39            759
TeX                              1             22              0            271
Markdown                         5             71              0            217
YAML                             2              7              4             42
reStructuredText                10             35             66             40
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            78           3592           5113          38357
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot · 2023-03-23T09:54:15Z

Wordcount for paper.md is 889

editorialbot · 2023-03-23T09:54:44Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.mechmat.2022.104307 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04389 is OK
- 10.1115/1.3153710 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-28983-6 is OK
- 10.1122/1.549945 is OK
- 10.1016/0001-6160(73)90064-3 is OK
- 10.1088/0508-3443/3/3/302 is OK
- 10.21236/ad0692481 is OK
- 10.1088/978-0-7503-1454-1ch26 is OK
- 10.1016/0167-6636(87)90005-6 is OK
- 10.5445/KSP/1000070061 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-662-46737-4 is OK
- 10.1002/pc.750050413 is OK
- 10.1007/978-94-009-3489-4 is OK
- 10.1016/S0266-3538(97)00129-2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.mechmat.2023.104555 is OK
- 10.1016/S1359-835X(97)00117-6 is OK
- 10.1016/0010-4361(78)90341-5 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compositesa.2014.08.027 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.6461940 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4029448 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-03-23T09:55:39Z

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

Extraweich · 2023-03-24T11:47:16Z

Hi everybody and thank you for your volunteering. I hope that we together can have a good review experience :)
Would it be possible to set the version to 1.0.11? There were some minor changes to the previous version. Concerning the contribution of @JulianKarlBauer, we agreed on not having him as a co-author, but mention his contribution in the acknowledgement section.

nicoguaro · 2023-04-01T16:41:27Z

Review checklist for @nicoguaro

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

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

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/Extraweich/homopy?
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 (@Extraweich) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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: 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?
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?

nicoguaro · 2023-04-01T17:20:20Z

@Extraweich, I do not find installation instructions.

Extraweich · 2023-04-01T17:23:45Z

@nicoguaro, you can find them in the docs. Do they need to be in the README in the repository, too?

nicoguaro · 2023-04-01T17:28:55Z

@nicoguaro, you can find them in the docs. Do they need to be in the README in the repository, too?

I could not find the instruction in the docs.

likask · 2023-04-01T18:10:15Z

Review checklist for @likask

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

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

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/Extraweich/homopy?
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 (@Extraweich) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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: 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?
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?

Extraweich · 2023-04-02T16:30:24Z

@nicoguaro, you can find them in the docs. Do they need to be in the README in the repository, too?

I could not find the instruction in the docs.

Am I right in assuming that you have found them by now? :)

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-04-17T12:33:04Z

@likask, @nicoguaro, @lizarett thanks again for your help with this review. Could you provide an update on review progress? Let me know if I can help with anything. Thanks.

editorialbot · 2023-04-21T14:33:42Z

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

lizarett · 2023-04-21T14:34:55Z

Review checklist for @lizarett

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

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

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/Extraweich/homopy?
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 (@Extraweich) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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: 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?
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?

lizarett · 2023-04-21T15:12:57Z

The paper/documentation appears to be well-written in general. The main comments currently are for the authors to describe in more details (in the documentation) the actual limitations of the implemented mathematical formulations, including geometrical shapes of initial material samples, number of materials allowed, relevant characteristics, etc. Some papers on the Mori-Tanaka method indicate a limited range of validity in terms of several parameters. The documentation of HomoPy uses "alternative forms", and it would be helpful to clarify, what kind of limitations are currently in place for the user. This may reiterate the published literature (papers, not code libraries), but, imo, it is worth it.

Extraweich · 2023-04-24T11:49:20Z

@lizarett thank you for your comment. Could you clarify a bit more to what extend you expect a derivation in the docs? The Git repository has a section for each homogenization procedure used in HomoPy in the README. Within these sections, the scope is mentioned and papers are referenced for the interested user to gain further insight into the reasons for limitations. My suggestion would be to add these sections to the docs as well and explicitly state the limitations (shapes, material symmetry, number of inclusions, etc.).

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-04-29T06:56:40Z

@lizarett can you get back to @Extraweich on the above ☝️ ? Thanks

lizarett · 2023-04-30T20:44:13Z

@lizarett thank you for your comment. Could you clarify a bit more to what extend you expect a derivation in the docs? The Git repository has a section for each homogenization procedure used in HomoPy in the README. Within these sections, the scope is mentioned and papers are referenced for the interested user to gain further insight into the reasons for limitations. My suggestion would be to add these sections to the docs as well and explicitly state the limitations (shapes, material symmetry, number of inclusions, etc.).

Yes, this sounds good. Thank you.

Extraweich · 2023-05-01T20:31:55Z

@lizarett thank you for your comment. Could you clarify a bit more to what extend you expect a derivation in the docs? The Git repository has a section for each homogenization procedure used in HomoPy in the README. Within these sections, the scope is mentioned and papers are referenced for the interested user to gain further insight into the reasons for limitations. My suggestion would be to add these sections to the docs as well and explicitly state the limitations (shapes, material symmetry, number of inclusions, etc.).

Yes, this sounds good. Thank you.

I added a "Scope and limitations" section to the docs. I would be happy if you could check it out and see if this suits your suggestions :)

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-05-18T14:04:41Z

@lizarett can you check this ☝️

lizarett · 2023-05-24T07:06:03Z

@Extraweich @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman all works for me and explained sufficiently, except the fiberoripy example didn't run, but this is my issue, not yours. i think all is fine

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-05-24T07:36:30Z

@lizarett thanks. Let me know if you are happy to formally recommend acceptance. If you do think that example should run I would encourage you to post an issue on that and get that resolved first. Let me know which route you feel is best. Thanks

Extraweich · 2023-05-24T08:52:42Z

@lizarett thanks. Let me know if you are happy to formally recommend acceptance. If you do think that example should run I would encourage you to post an issue on that and get that resolved first. Let me know which route you feel is best. Thanks

The example requires to install another Python package, which is not required in HomoPy directly.
If it helps, I could reformulate the example with a fixed orientation tensor of 4th order to avoid the installation.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-07-07T12:16:36Z

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-07-07T12:17:20Z

@Extraweich we will now proceed to process this work towards acceptance in JOSS. Above are the final steps we need to work on. Can you take care of these author tasks?

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-07-07T12:42:24Z

@Extraweich side note, I created a PR which is not a requirement for this review but aims to fix a rendering issue with the logo in the README: Extraweich/homopy#24

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-07-07T12:42:39Z

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot · 2023-07-07T12:42:44Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.mechmat.2022.104307 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04389 is OK
- 10.1115/1.3153710 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-28983-6 is OK
- 10.1122/1.549945 is OK
- 10.1016/0001-6160(73)90064-3 is OK
- 10.1088/0508-3443/3/3/302 is OK
- 10.21236/ad0692481 is OK
- 10.1088/978-0-7503-1454-1ch26 is OK
- 10.1016/0167-6636(87)90005-6 is OK
- 10.5445/KSP/1000070061 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-662-46737-4 is OK
- 10.1002/pc.750050413 is OK
- 10.1007/978-94-009-3489-4 is OK
- 10.1016/S0266-3538(97)00129-2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.mechmat.2023.104555 is OK
- 10.1016/S1359-835X(97)00117-6 is OK
- 10.1016/0010-4361(78)90341-5 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compositesa.2014.08.027 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.6461940 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4029448 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7305587 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

Extraweich · 2023-07-07T13:31:26Z

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman, I checked all the points on the list. I guess that you need to cross them for me, though.
I added a new release, updated the Zenodo DOI and checked authors and the license.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-07-07T13:39:29Z

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.8124344 as archive

editorialbot · 2023-07-07T13:39:31Z

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.8124344

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-07-11T08:29:17Z

@Extraweich

Could you please format your author set for the ZENODO archive like for the paper, i.e. a simple list with ORCIDs and in the same order as the paper?
Make sure the archive title matches the paper title

Extraweich · 2023-07-11T09:09:56Z

@Extraweich

* [ ]  Could you please format your author set for the ZENODO archive like for the paper, i.e. a simple list with ORCIDs and in the same order as the paper?

* [ ]  Make sure the archive title matches the paper title

Hi @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman, I changed the name of the ZENODO archive to match the paper title. ~~I am not sure what you mean with the first bullet point, though.~~

~~Could you clarify this please?~~

Edit: I confused contributors with authors. I think it should be correct now.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-07-11T09:18:56Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2023-07-11T09:18:57Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2023-07-11T09:19:05Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.mechmat.2022.104307 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04389 is OK
- 10.1115/1.3153710 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-28983-6 is OK
- 10.1122/1.549945 is OK
- 10.1016/0001-6160(73)90064-3 is OK
- 10.1088/0508-3443/3/3/302 is OK
- 10.21236/ad0692481 is OK
- 10.1088/978-0-7503-1454-1ch26 is OK
- 10.1016/0167-6636(87)90005-6 is OK
- 10.5445/KSP/1000070061 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-662-46737-4 is OK
- 10.1002/pc.750050413 is OK
- 10.1007/978-94-009-3489-4 is OK
- 10.1016/S0266-3538(97)00129-2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.mechmat.2023.104555 is OK
- 10.1016/S1359-835X(97)00117-6 is OK
- 10.1016/0010-4361(78)90341-5 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compositesa.2014.08.027 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.6461940 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4029448 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7305587 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-07-11T09:20:45Z

👋 @openjournals/pe-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#4392, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-07-11T09:23:07Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2023-07-11T09:23:09Z

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2023-07-11T09:25:00Z

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Christ
  given-names: Nicolas
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4713-8096"
- family-names: Scheuring
  given-names: Benedikt M.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2971-1431"
- family-names: Montesano
  given-names: John
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2723-052X"
- family-names: Hohe
  given-names: Jörg
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3994-4562"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8124344
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Christ
    given-names: Nicolas
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4713-8096"
  - family-names: Scheuring
    given-names: Benedikt M.
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2971-1431"
  - family-names: Montesano
    given-names: John
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2723-052X"
  - family-names: Hohe
    given-names: Jörg
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3994-4562"
  date-published: 2023-07-11
  doi: 10.21105/joss.05295
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 87
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 5295
  title: "HomoPy: A Python package for homogenization procedures in
    fiber reinforced polymers"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05295"
  volume: 8
title: "HomoPy: A Python package for homogenization procedures in fiber
  reinforced polymers"

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

editorialbot · 2023-07-11T09:25:04Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2023-07-11T09:25:05Z

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.05295 joss-papers#4393
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05295
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-07-11T09:48:11Z

@Extraweich congratulations on this JOSS publication!

A special thanks to the fantastic reviewers! @likask, @nicoguaro, @lizarett

editorialbot · 2023-07-11T09:48:14Z

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05295/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05295)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05295">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05295/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05295/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05295

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

Extraweich · 2023-07-11T10:51:58Z

Thank you very much everybody for reviewing the paper and providing a valuable input. Special thanks to @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman for the awesome communication and editorial work. :)

arfon · 2023-08-14T06:55:39Z

@editorialbot reaccept

editorialbot · 2023-08-14T06:55:41Z

Rebuilding paper!

editorialbot · 2023-08-14T06:57:31Z

🌈 Paper updated!

New PDF and metadata files 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#4483

editorialbot added Python review TeX Track: 3 (PE) Physics and Engineering labels Mar 23, 2023

editorialbot assigned Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Mar 23, 2023

editorialbot mentioned this issue Mar 23, 2023

[PRE REVIEW]: A Python package for homogenization procedures in fiber reinforced polymers #5199

Closed

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Jul 11, 2023

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Jul 11, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman closed this as completed Jul 11, 2023

arfon changed the title ~~[REVIEW]: HomoPy: A Python package for homogenization procedures in fiber reinforced polymers~~ [REVIEW]: A Python package for homogenization procedures in fiber reinforced polymers Aug 14, 2023

[REVIEW]: A Python package for homogenization procedures in fiber reinforced polymers #5295

[REVIEW]: A Python package for homogenization procedures in fiber reinforced polymers #5295

Comments

editorialbot commented Mar 23, 2023 • edited

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Mar 23, 2023

editorialbot commented Mar 23, 2023

editorialbot commented Mar 23, 2023

editorialbot commented Mar 23, 2023

editorialbot commented Mar 23, 2023

Extraweich commented Mar 24, 2023

nicoguaro commented Apr 1, 2023 • edited

Review checklist for @nicoguaro

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

nicoguaro commented Apr 1, 2023

Extraweich commented Apr 1, 2023

nicoguaro commented Apr 1, 2023

likask commented Apr 1, 2023 • edited

Review checklist for @likask

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Extraweich commented Apr 2, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Apr 17, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 21, 2023

lizarett commented Apr 21, 2023 • edited

Review checklist for @lizarett

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

lizarett commented Apr 21, 2023

Extraweich commented Apr 24, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Apr 29, 2023

lizarett commented Apr 30, 2023

Extraweich commented May 1, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented May 18, 2023

lizarett commented May 24, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented May 24, 2023

Extraweich commented May 24, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Jul 7, 2023 • edited

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Jul 7, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Jul 7, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Jul 7, 2023

editorialbot commented Jul 7, 2023

Extraweich commented Jul 7, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Jul 7, 2023

editorialbot commented Jul 7, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Jul 11, 2023 • edited

Extraweich commented Jul 11, 2023 • edited

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Jul 11, 2023

editorialbot commented Jul 11, 2023

editorialbot commented Jul 11, 2023

editorialbot commented Jul 11, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Jul 11, 2023

editorialbot commented Jul 11, 2023

editorialbot commented Jul 11, 2023

editorialbot commented Jul 11, 2023

editorialbot commented Jul 11, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Jul 11, 2023

editorialbot commented Jul 11, 2023

Extraweich commented Jul 11, 2023

arfon commented Aug 14, 2023

editorialbot commented Aug 14, 2023

editorialbot commented Aug 14, 2023

editorialbot commented Mar 23, 2023 •

edited

nicoguaro commented Apr 1, 2023 •

edited

likask commented Apr 1, 2023 •

edited

lizarett commented Apr 21, 2023 •

edited

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Jul 7, 2023 •

edited

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Jul 11, 2023 •

edited

Extraweich commented Jul 11, 2023 •

edited