[REVIEW]: APECSS: A software library for cavitation bubble dynamics and acoustic emissions #5435

editorialbot · 2023-05-03T19:46:50Z

Submitting author: @fabiandenner (Fabian Denner)
Repository: https://github.com/polycfd/apecss
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss
Version: v1.4
Editor: @kyleniemeyer
Reviewers: @jmansour, @svchb
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8043400

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/27166cd5496c33d62e74132712efec8a"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/27166cd5496c33d62e74132712efec8a/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/27166cd5496c33d62e74132712efec8a/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/27166cd5496c33d62e74132712efec8a)

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

@jmansour & @svchb, 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 @kyleniemeyer 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 @svchb

📝 Checklist for @jmansour

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

editorialbot · 2023-05-03T19:46:52Z

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 · 2023-05-03T19:46:53Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.04 s (1181.0 files/s, 251896.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C                               15            928            639           4151
TeX                             11            381            242           3195
C/C++ Header                     1             98             91            488
YAML                             4             22              5            268
Markdown                         9             79              0            234
CMake                            6             48              0            198
Bourne Shell                     6              0              0             24
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            52           1556            977           8558
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot · 2023-05-03T19:46:54Z

Wordcount for paper.md is 1637

editorialbot · 2023-05-03T19:46:58Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1146/annurev.fl.09.010177.001045 is OK
- 10.1088/0034-4885/73/10/106501 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev.fl.19.010187.000531 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2022.106131 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2020.105441 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2022.117586 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2016.12.012 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00622 is OK
- 10.1007/978-94-017-7255-6 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2020.01.002 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.74.425 is OK
- 10.1017/jfm.2022.202 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00438 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1019623108 is OK
- 10.1557/mrs.2019.107 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-017-14312-0 is OK
- 10.1098/rsif.2015.0930 is OK
- 10.1016/j.chaos.2008.04.011 is OK
- 10.1063/5.0131930 is OK
- 10.1098/rsfs.2011.0026 is OK
- 10.1148/radiol.11111417 is OK
- 10.1063/5.0043822 is OK
- 10.1109/JOE.2018.2853199 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1606915113 is OK
- 10.1039/C2LC20861J is OK
- 10.1080/14786440808635681 is OK
- 10.1115/1.4009975 is OK
- 10.1121/1.384720 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2020.105307 is OK
- 10.1121/1.2118307 is OK
- 10.1063/1.4817673 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ultras.2005.03.010 is OK
- 10.1121/1.2109427 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2021.06.012 is OK
- 10.1016/0771-050X(80)90013-3 is OK
- 10.1063/1.4945981 is OK
- 10.1063/1.1701962 is OK
- 10.1098/rspa.2009.0594 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.5962/bhl.title.48411 may be a valid DOI for title: Underwater Explosions
- 10.21236/ad0403347 may be a valid DOI for title: The Collapse of a Spherical Cavity in a Compressible Liquid

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-05-03T19:48:14Z

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

kyleniemeyer · 2023-05-03T19:48:27Z

👋 Hi @fabiandenner @jmansour @svchb this is where the actual review takes place. Thanks!

fabiandenner · 2023-05-03T19:54:08Z

Thanks @kyleniemeyer.

Thanks @jmansour and @svchb for accepting the invitation to review our work. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions or suggestions.

svchb · 2023-05-03T20:02:18Z

Review checklist for @svchb

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/polycfd/apecss?
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 (@fabiandenner) 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?

svchb · 2023-05-17T11:15:12Z

@fabiandenner Your paper is lacking a section in which you compare APECSS to other software tools that can be used for bubble dynamics. I must add personally I am not aware of other software packages in this area.

svchb · 2023-05-17T11:17:20Z

@kyleniemeyer It seems like @jmansour is not participating.

jmansour · 2023-05-17T11:22:05Z

Hi all. Apologies, this completely fell off the radar and I failed to notice the Github notifications until now.
I'll spend some time on this over the next few days and report back.

fabiandenner · 2023-05-17T11:42:11Z

@svchb I agree, a direct comparison of APECSS to similar software tools would be a nice addition. On multiple occasions, also just before submitting to JOSS as we anticipated this question, we tried our best to identify open-source tools with similar capabilities. However, we also couldn't find any. We validated APECSS thoroughly, especially in our Physics of Fluids paper published earlier this year, and this can also be checked with the examples provided in the repository (we mention the literature case it should reproduce in the README.md accompanying each example). In terms of performance, we could conduct a comparison to an in-house Python implementation, using SciPy functions (with the same Runge-Kutta method) to solve the governing ODE, for a few examples. I'm not sure how representative such an implementation would be, but it could at least give a rough orientation about the performance benefit. What do you think?

svchb · 2023-05-17T11:53:14Z

@fabiandenner I had not yet time to check your code or examples. Anyway I am not sure how representative that would be as performance of Python based solvers largely depends on avoiding native Python code execution of computational intensive parts.

fabiandenner · 2023-05-17T11:57:06Z

@svchb I agree, our Python scripts are perhaps best described as a simple implementation with off-the-shelf components, not a sophisticated or performance-optimized implementation.

svchb · 2023-05-17T13:40:22Z

@fabiandenner Please add how to run an example to your Readme.md.
Also nice would be to introduce an error message which points to the actual usage i.e. ./example-bin -options run.apecss and adding common command line help arguments i.e. -h/-help.
Also are the examples supposed to perform timesteps?

fabiandenner · 2023-05-17T13:52:11Z

@svchb Yes it is supposed to perform time steps. The README.md of this test case provides an example of the execution command (that corresponds to reproducing the references literature result). I think what's missing in your execution are the excitation frequency and amplitude, and the end time of the simulation.

I'll expand the Quick Start section of the main README.md file to include the additional steps to running one of the examples.

The help arguments is a nice idea, thanks for this suggestion. I'll add this. Also, I'll have a look into the error messages.

svchb · 2023-05-17T13:58:55Z

@fabiandenner Oh I didn't read the README.md in the examples folder. Maybe point to these files more explicitly from the repository README.md.

fabiandenner · 2023-05-17T23:03:34Z

@svchb I just committed some small changes. I expanded the Quick Start Guide in the primary README.md and moved it further up in the text, so that it is better visible. Also, -h now provides some basic command line help.

jmansour · 2023-05-18T20:39:04Z

Review checklist for @jmansour

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/polycfd/apecss?
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 (@fabiandenner) 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?

fabiandenner · 2023-05-24T14:57:26Z

@svchb and @jmansour Just to let you know, I found a small mistake in the paper draft. The label of the $y$-axis in Figure 1(h) was incorrect, $u(r,t)$ instead of $u(r)$. I committed a corrected a figure.

svchb · 2023-05-31T07:03:41Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2023-05-31T07:04:59Z

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

svchb · 2023-05-31T10:07:59Z

Some comments:

Your in-code documentation is lacking it would be better to document major functions within the code
It would be nice if you add scripts to plot the output of your examples
Your documentation file would benefit from more diagrams/illustrations/plots

Tests:

Your tests only verify that the code compiles and runs. Please adjust the tests in a way that they compare to a verified result as well.

Besides this testing aspect I am satisfied with the paper, documentation and code.

kyleniemeyer · 2023-06-15T16:20:50Z

@fabiandenner no worries, I can check them off

kyleniemeyer · 2023-06-15T16:21:01Z

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.8043400 as archive

editorialbot · 2023-06-15T16:21:03Z

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.8043400

kyleniemeyer · 2023-06-15T16:21:16Z

@editorialbot set v1.4 as version

editorialbot · 2023-06-15T16:21:18Z

Done! version is now v1.4

kyleniemeyer · 2023-06-15T16:21:47Z

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot · 2023-06-15T16:21:53Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1146/annurev.fl.09.010177.001045 is OK
- 10.1088/0034-4885/73/10/106501 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev.fl.19.010187.000531 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2022.106131 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2020.105441 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2022.117586 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2016.12.012 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00622 is OK
- 10.1007/978-94-017-7255-6 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2020.01.002 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.74.425 is OK
- 10.1017/jfm.2022.202 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00438 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1019623108 is OK
- 10.1557/mrs.2019.107 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-017-14312-0 is OK
- 10.1098/rsif.2015.0930 is OK
- 10.1016/j.chaos.2008.04.011 is OK
- 10.1063/5.0131930 is OK
- 10.1098/rsfs.2011.0026 is OK
- 10.1148/radiol.11111417 is OK
- 10.1063/5.0043822 is OK
- 10.1109/JOE.2018.2853199 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1606915113 is OK
- 10.1039/C2LC20861J is OK
- 10.1080/14786440808635681 is OK
- 10.1115/1.4009975 is OK
- 10.1121/1.384720 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2020.105307 is OK
- 10.1121/1.2118307 is OK
- 10.1063/1.4817673 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ultras.2005.03.010 is OK
- 10.1121/1.2109427 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2021.06.012 is OK
- 10.1016/0771-050X(80)90013-3 is OK
- 10.1063/1.4945981 is OK
- 10.1063/1.1701962 is OK
- 10.1098/rspa.2009.0594 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.5962/bhl.title.48411 may be a valid DOI for title: Underwater Explosions
- 10.21236/ad0403347 may be a valid DOI for title: The Collapse of a Spherical Cavity in a Compressible Liquid

INVALID DOIs

- None

kyleniemeyer · 2023-06-15T16:22:39Z

@fabiandenner can you check on those potentially missing DOIs in the paper?

fabiandenner · 2023-06-15T16:49:18Z

@kyleniemeyer One of the missing DOIs, for the book Underwater Explosions is spot on, well done editorialbot. I've added it to the bib file. Regarding the bot-suggested DOI, for the report The Collapse of a Spherical Cavity in a Compressible Liquid, it does not seem to work. However, the Cal Tech address in the reference is supposedly a persistent identifier provided by Cal Tech.

fabiandenner · 2023-06-15T16:49:33Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2023-06-15T16:51:22Z

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

kyleniemeyer · 2023-06-15T16:52:25Z

Great! looks good to me.

kyleniemeyer · 2023-06-15T16:52:27Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2023-06-15T16:52:29Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2023-06-15T16:52:34Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1146/annurev.fl.09.010177.001045 is OK
- 10.1088/0034-4885/73/10/106501 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev.fl.19.010187.000531 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2022.106131 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2020.105441 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2022.117586 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2016.12.012 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00622 is OK
- 10.1007/978-94-017-7255-6 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2020.01.002 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.74.425 is OK
- 10.1017/jfm.2022.202 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00438 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1019623108 is OK
- 10.1557/mrs.2019.107 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-017-14312-0 is OK
- 10.1098/rsif.2015.0930 is OK
- 10.1016/j.chaos.2008.04.011 is OK
- 10.1063/5.0131930 is OK
- 10.1098/rsfs.2011.0026 is OK
- 10.1148/radiol.11111417 is OK
- 10.1063/5.0043822 is OK
- 10.1109/JOE.2018.2853199 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1606915113 is OK
- 10.1039/C2LC20861J is OK
- 10.1080/14786440808635681 is OK
- 10.1115/1.4009975 is OK
- 10.1121/1.384720 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2020.105307 is OK
- 10.1121/1.2118307 is OK
- 10.1063/1.4817673 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ultras.2005.03.010 is OK
- 10.1121/1.2109427 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2021.06.012 is OK
- 10.1016/0771-050X(80)90013-3 is OK
- 10.5962/bhl.title.48411 is OK
- 10.1063/1.4945981 is OK
- 10.1063/1.1701962 is OK
- 10.1098/rspa.2009.0594 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.21236/ad0403347 may be a valid DOI for title: The Collapse of a Spherical Cavity in a Compressible Liquid

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-06-15T16:54:47Z

👋 @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#4315, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

fabiandenner · 2023-06-15T17:01:59Z

Looks all good to me.

kyleniemeyer · 2023-06-15T17:40:50Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2023-06-15T17:40:51Z

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

editorialbot · 2023-06-15T17:42:52Z

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: Denner
  given-names: Fabian
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5812-061X"
- family-names: Schenke
  given-names: Sören
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8765-3722"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8043400
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Denner
    given-names: Fabian
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5812-061X"
  - family-names: Schenke
    given-names: Sören
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8765-3722"
  date-published: 2023-06-15
  doi: 10.21105/joss.05435
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 86
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 5435
  title: "APECSS: A software library for cavitation bubble dynamics and
    acoustic emissions"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05435"
  volume: 8
title: "APECSS: A software library for cavitation bubble dynamics and
  acoustic emissions"

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 · 2023-06-15T17:42:57Z

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

editorialbot · 2023-06-15T17:42:58Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2023-06-15T17:42:59Z

🚨🚨🚨 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.05435 joss-papers#4316
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05435
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

fabiandenner · 2023-06-15T18:47:22Z

@kyleniemeyer Thanks for wrapping this up and thanks to @svchb and @jmansour for taking the time to review our paper and code.

I hope other journals take notice of the excellent workflow JOSS is running, very good work!

kyleniemeyer · 2023-06-15T23:23:59Z

Congratulations @fabiandenner on your article's publication in JOSS! If you haven't already, please sign up as a reviewer so you can help us with submissions in the future: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join

Many thanks to @jmansour and @svchb for reviewing this.

editorialbot · 2023-06-15T23:24:01Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.05435/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05435)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05435">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05435/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05435/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05435

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 C CMake review Shell Track: 3 (PE) Physics and Engineering labels May 3, 2023

editorialbot assigned kyleniemeyer May 3, 2023

editorialbot mentioned this issue May 3, 2023

[PRE REVIEW]: APECSS: A software library for cavitation bubble dynamics and acoustic emissions #5390

Closed

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Jun 15, 2023

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Jun 15, 2023

kyleniemeyer closed this as completed Jun 15, 2023

[REVIEW]: APECSS: A software library for cavitation bubble dynamics and acoustic emissions #5435

[REVIEW]: APECSS: A software library for cavitation bubble dynamics and acoustic emissions #5435

Comments

editorialbot commented May 3, 2023 • edited

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented May 3, 2023

editorialbot commented May 3, 2023

editorialbot commented May 3, 2023

editorialbot commented May 3, 2023

editorialbot commented May 3, 2023

kyleniemeyer commented May 3, 2023

fabiandenner commented May 3, 2023

svchb commented May 3, 2023 • edited

Review checklist for @svchb

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

svchb commented May 17, 2023

svchb commented May 17, 2023

jmansour commented May 17, 2023

fabiandenner commented May 17, 2023

svchb commented May 17, 2023

fabiandenner commented May 17, 2023

svchb commented May 17, 2023

fabiandenner commented May 17, 2023

svchb commented May 17, 2023

fabiandenner commented May 17, 2023

jmansour commented May 18, 2023 • edited

Review checklist for @jmansour

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

fabiandenner commented May 24, 2023

svchb commented May 31, 2023

editorialbot commented May 31, 2023

svchb commented May 31, 2023

kyleniemeyer commented Jun 15, 2023

kyleniemeyer commented Jun 15, 2023

editorialbot commented Jun 15, 2023

kyleniemeyer commented Jun 15, 2023

editorialbot commented Jun 15, 2023

kyleniemeyer commented Jun 15, 2023

editorialbot commented Jun 15, 2023

kyleniemeyer commented Jun 15, 2023

fabiandenner commented Jun 15, 2023

fabiandenner commented Jun 15, 2023

editorialbot commented Jun 15, 2023

kyleniemeyer commented Jun 15, 2023

kyleniemeyer commented Jun 15, 2023

editorialbot commented Jun 15, 2023

editorialbot commented Jun 15, 2023

editorialbot commented Jun 15, 2023

fabiandenner commented Jun 15, 2023

kyleniemeyer commented Jun 15, 2023

editorialbot commented Jun 15, 2023

editorialbot commented Jun 15, 2023

editorialbot commented Jun 15, 2023

editorialbot commented Jun 15, 2023

editorialbot commented Jun 15, 2023

fabiandenner commented Jun 15, 2023

kyleniemeyer commented Jun 15, 2023

editorialbot commented Jun 15, 2023

editorialbot commented May 3, 2023 •

edited

svchb commented May 3, 2023 •

edited

jmansour commented May 18, 2023 •

edited