[REVIEW]: PINA: Physics-Informed Neural networks for Advance modeling #5352

editorialbot · 2023-04-09T13:56:05Z

Submitting author: @ndem0 (Nicola Demo)
Repository: https://github.com/mathLab/PINA
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 0.0.3-joss
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewers: @yorkiva, @y-yao, @akshaysubr
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8163732

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/37c5bbfc86a193a6e8c6d94df7648216"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/37c5bbfc86a193a6e8c6d94df7648216/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/37c5bbfc86a193a6e8c6d94df7648216/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/37c5bbfc86a193a6e8c6d94df7648216)

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

@yorkiva & @y-yao & @akshaysubr, 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 @danielskatz 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 @yorkiva

📝 Checklist for @y-yao

📝 Checklist for @akshaysubr

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

editorialbot · 2023-04-09T13:56:08Z

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 · 2023-04-09T13:56:10Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.09 s (1096.2 files/s, 125040.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          66           1385           1604           3283
Jupyter Notebook                 4              0           1313           1004
reStructuredText                15            547            922            488
Markdown                         6             86              0            295
TeX                              1             54              1            190
YAML                             7             35              5            173
make                             1             30              6            156
Bourne Shell                     1             11              5             36
HTML                             1              0              0              6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           102           2148           3856           5631
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot · 2023-04-09T13:56:11Z

Wordcount for paper.md is 1191

editorialbot · 2023-04-09T13:56:38Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1561/9781601988157 is OK
- 10.1088/0964-1726/14/1/011 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2201.05624 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01931 is OK
- 10.1137/19m1274067 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-77977-1_36 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cma.2020.113552 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cma.2019.112789 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2103.09655 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cma.2020.113547 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ymssp.2022.108875 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2110.13530 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1412.6980 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2210.13416 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-04-09T13:57:35Z

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

danielskatz · 2023-04-09T13:57:42Z

@yorkiva, @y-yao, and @akshaysubr - Thanks for agreeing to review this submission.
This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

As you can see above, you each should use the command @editorialbot generate my checklist to create your review checklist. @editorialbot commands need to be the first thing in a new comment.

As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#5352 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if either of you require some more time. We can also use editorialbot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@danielskatz) if you have any questions/concerns.

y-yao · 2023-04-09T18:05:25Z

Review checklist for @y-yao

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/mathLab/PINA?
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 (@ndem0) 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?

y-yao · 2023-04-17T05:03:07Z

@editorialbot @ndem0 I didn't see any formal API documentaion page in the repo. For example, what are the assumptions and constraints of the various API functions.
One thing I'm wondering about in particular is: does the API for specifying boundary conditions allow for irregular boundaries (ie, non-rectangular). All examples seem to rely on rectangular boundaries and I don't see the constraints documented anywhere.

editorialbot · 2023-04-17T05:03:09Z

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

@editorialbot commands

y-yao · 2023-04-17T05:03:29Z

@editorialbot commands

editorialbot · 2023-04-17T05:03:33Z

Hello @y-yao, here are the things you can ask me to do:


# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

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

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

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

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

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

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

danielskatz · 2023-04-17T12:37:48Z

@y-yao - As you've discovered, @editorialbot is a fairly simple bot, only used to automate certain actions. But your comment to the author about the part of your review you can't complete was great, as was your opening an issue about it.

danielskatz · 2023-04-17T12:39:05Z

👋 @yorkiva and @akshaysubr - if you could also generate your checklists as in the instructions above, and at least check off the first two items, I would appreciate it, even if you don't have time to start on the technical parts of the review yet.

yorkiva · 2023-04-17T16:14:39Z

Review checklist for @yorkiva

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/mathLab/PINA?
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 (@ndem0) 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?

danielskatz · 2023-04-19T13:30:01Z

👋 @akshaysubr - if you could generate your checklist as in the instructions above, and at least check off the first two items, I would appreciate it, even if you don't have time to start on the technical parts of the review yet.

akshaysubr · 2023-04-25T16:59:44Z

Review checklist for @akshaysubr

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/mathLab/PINA?
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 (@ndem0) 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?

danielskatz · 2023-05-03T03:50:42Z

👋 @yorkiva and @akshaysubr - how are your reviews coming?

danielskatz · 2023-05-03T03:51:59Z

👋 @ndem0 & @y-yao - do you think mathLab/PINA#78 is done now, or is more needed? (I'm just wondering if it should be closed or not)

y-yao · 2023-05-03T04:56:52Z

@danielskatz I think mathLab/PINA#78 can be closed.

yorkiva · 2023-05-05T03:43:41Z

Hi @danielskatz, I will try to get a few more action items looked at this weekend. However, I am going away for a conference next week, so the rest will have to wait till I come back.

akshaysubr · 2023-07-17T16:12:12Z

Yes, I'm satisfied with the submission after the changes and can be accepted now.

danielskatz · 2023-07-18T15:57:35Z

@ndem0 - At this point could you:

Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here.
Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g., figshare, an institutional repository)
Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) has the correct metadata. This includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it). You may also add the authors' ORCID.
Please list the DOI of the archived version here.

I can then move forward with recommending acceptance of the submission, which will include me generating a draft and then proofreading it

ndem0 · 2023-07-19T12:13:45Z

Dear @danielskatz, I should have done all the points!

the tag is 0.0.3-joss, here the link to the release https://github.com/mathLab/PINA/releases/tag/v0.0.3-joss
I uploaded that tag to Zenodo, this is the record page https://zenodo.org/record/8163732
the DOI for the Zenodo capsule is https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8163732

I double checked and everything looks correct to me, but let me know if there are some problem and I'll fix asap! Thanks

danielskatz · 2023-07-19T16:25:12Z

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.8163732 as archive

editorialbot · 2023-07-19T16:25:14Z

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.8163732

danielskatz · 2023-07-19T16:25:23Z

@editorialbot set 0.0.3-joss as version

editorialbot · 2023-07-19T16:25:25Z

Done! version is now 0.0.3-joss

danielskatz · 2023-07-19T16:26:41Z

@ndem0 - in the zenodo repo, the authors are just listed by a single name (surname? github ID?). Please change these to actual names to match the paper's authors. (Note this just requires changing the metadata in the zenodo archive, not creating a new version)

ndem0 · 2023-07-19T16:31:36Z

Yes there were some errors, now the authors string is fine

danielskatz · 2023-07-19T16:56:38Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2023-07-19T16:56:40Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2023-07-19T16:56:50Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1561/9781601988157 is OK
- 10.1088/0964-1726/14/1/011 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2201.05624 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01931 is OK
- 10.1137/19m1274067 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-77977-1_36 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cma.2020.113552 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cma.2019.112789 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2103.09655 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cma.2020.113547 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ymssp.2022.108875 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2110.13530 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1412.6980 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2210.13416 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-07-19T16:58:20Z

👋 @openjournals/csism-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#4415, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz · 2023-07-19T17:07:14Z

@ndem0 - I'm suggesting some minor changes in mathLab/PINA#161 - please merge this, or let me know what you disagree with, then we can proceed to publication

ndem0 · 2023-07-19T17:25:20Z

Sure, I've already merged it! Thanks for the effort!

danielskatz · 2023-07-19T17:31:44Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2023-07-19T17:31:45Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2023-07-19T17:31:49Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1561/9781601988157 is OK
- 10.1088/0964-1726/14/1/011 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2201.05624 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01931 is OK
- 10.1137/19m1274067 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2103.16034 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2107.04320 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-77977-1_36 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cma.2020.113552 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1909.11544 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2103.14575 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cma.2019.112789 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2103.09655 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cma.2020.113547 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ymssp.2022.108875 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2110.13530 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1412.6980 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2210.13416 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-07-19T17:33:09Z

👋 @openjournals/csism-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#4416, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz · 2023-07-19T17:39:22Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2023-07-19T17:39:23Z

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

editorialbot · 2023-07-19T17:41:03Z

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: Coscia
  given-names: Dario
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8833-6833"
- family-names: Ivagnes
  given-names: Anna
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2369-4493"
- family-names: Demo
  given-names: Nicola
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3107-9738"
- family-names: Rozza
  given-names: Gianluigi
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0810-8812"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8163732
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Coscia
    given-names: Dario
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8833-6833"
  - family-names: Ivagnes
    given-names: Anna
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2369-4493"
  - family-names: Demo
    given-names: Nicola
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3107-9738"
  - family-names: Rozza
    given-names: Gianluigi
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0810-8812"
  date-published: 2023-07-19
  doi: 10.21105/joss.05352
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 87
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 5352
  title: Physics-Informed Neural networks for Advanced modeling
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05352"
  volume: 8
title: Physics-Informed Neural networks for Advanced modeling

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 · 2023-07-19T17:41:08Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2023-07-19T17:41:08Z

🚨🚨🚨 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.05352 joss-papers#4417
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05352
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

danielskatz · 2023-07-19T17:46:26Z

Congratulations to @ndem0 (Nicola Demo) and co-authors on your publication!!

And thanks to @yorkiva, @y-yao, and @akshaysubr for reviewing!
We couldn't do this without your voluntary efforts

editorialbot · 2023-07-19T17:46:28Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.05352/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05352)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05352">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05352/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05352/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05352

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

editorialbot added Python review Shell TeX Track: 7 (CSISM) Computer science, Information Science, and Mathematics labels Apr 9, 2023

editorialbot assigned danielskatz Apr 9, 2023

editorialbot mentioned this issue Apr 9, 2023

[PRE REVIEW]: PINA: Physics-Informed Neural networks for Advanced modeling #5311

Closed

y-yao mentioned this issue Apr 17, 2023

API documentation mathLab/PINA#78

Closed

This was referenced May 19, 2023

Adding Regularization to the PINN Loss function mathLab/PINA#102

Closed

Adding Comments to the Examples mathLab/PINA#103

Closed

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Jul 19, 2023

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Jul 19, 2023

danielskatz closed this as completed Jul 19, 2023

[REVIEW]: PINA: Physics-Informed Neural networks for Advance modeling #5352

[REVIEW]: PINA: Physics-Informed Neural networks for Advance modeling #5352

Comments

editorialbot commented Apr 9, 2023 • edited

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Apr 9, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 9, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 9, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 9, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 9, 2023

danielskatz commented Apr 9, 2023

y-yao commented Apr 9, 2023 • edited

Review checklist for @y-yao

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

y-yao commented Apr 17, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 17, 2023

y-yao commented Apr 17, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 17, 2023

danielskatz commented Apr 17, 2023 • edited

danielskatz commented Apr 17, 2023

yorkiva commented Apr 17, 2023 • edited

Review checklist for @yorkiva

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

danielskatz commented Apr 19, 2023

akshaysubr commented Apr 25, 2023 • edited

Review checklist for @akshaysubr

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

danielskatz commented May 3, 2023

danielskatz commented May 3, 2023

y-yao commented May 3, 2023

yorkiva commented May 5, 2023

akshaysubr commented Jul 17, 2023

danielskatz commented Jul 18, 2023

ndem0 commented Jul 19, 2023

danielskatz commented Jul 19, 2023

editorialbot commented Jul 19, 2023

danielskatz commented Jul 19, 2023

editorialbot commented Jul 19, 2023

danielskatz commented Jul 19, 2023

ndem0 commented Jul 19, 2023

danielskatz commented Jul 19, 2023

editorialbot commented Jul 19, 2023

editorialbot commented Jul 19, 2023

editorialbot commented Jul 19, 2023

danielskatz commented Jul 19, 2023

ndem0 commented Jul 19, 2023

danielskatz commented Jul 19, 2023

editorialbot commented Jul 19, 2023

editorialbot commented Jul 19, 2023

editorialbot commented Jul 19, 2023

danielskatz commented Jul 19, 2023

editorialbot commented Jul 19, 2023

editorialbot commented Jul 19, 2023

editorialbot commented Jul 19, 2023

editorialbot commented Jul 19, 2023

danielskatz commented Jul 19, 2023

editorialbot commented Jul 19, 2023

editorialbot commented Apr 9, 2023 •

edited

y-yao commented Apr 9, 2023 •

edited

danielskatz commented Apr 17, 2023 •

edited

yorkiva commented Apr 17, 2023 •

edited

akshaysubr commented Apr 25, 2023 •

edited