New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[REVIEW]: qujax: Simulating quantum circuits with JAX #5504
Comments
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:
For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
|
|
Wordcount for |
|
@SamDuffield I can see that the paper is already exceeding the (not completely strict) word limit of ~1000 words. Please bear this in mind when making amendments - if you want to add something to the paper, something else may need to come out. I suggest prioritising (keeping in) your high level summary at the start of the paper, and the statement of need section. The tensor descriptions I think are fine for the paper at its current length. |
Review checklist for @meandmytramConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
Review checklist for @jmiszczakConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
@editorialbot commands |
Hello @jmiszczak, here are the things you can ask me to do:
|
Dear @jmiszczak and @meandmytram - I can see you have both started your reviews. This is a reminder to keep going - and please update this thread (or raise an issue on the qujax repo) with points as they arise. |
OK, thanks for the reminder. |
Hi @lucydot, I made some tests, played with the code, and everything looks perfect. So, should I just finish the form and that's it? |
@jmiszczak If you are happy that each point in the checklist is met, then yes go ahead and check each point off. A brief description of what you have tested (e.g. worked through the tutorials) would be useful, and anything that your review has raised that is not an acceptance-blocker, but would improve the quality of the software, is encouraged. @meandmytram, a reminder for your review. |
Package installation is handled via pip. Basic examples with variational quantum algorithms are provided in notebooks. To run notebooks, one has to additionally instal Jupyter. The paper provides a good explanation of the provided functionality. Delivered documentation and usage examples are sufficient to start working with the package. The major advantage of qujax is the ability to use just-in-time compilation. Another nice feature is the functional approach. These two are the major features distinguishing it among other packages. I highly recommend publication in JOSS. |
Review checklist for @amitkumarj441Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
Hello, pleased to see all reviews are underway. |
Hey everyone, just dropping my quick review here. I was able to install the package through the use of pip and play with all the provided tutorials as well as digging a bit through the API. I found the paper well written and the statement of need the state clearly justifying the fact that the package fills in a specific niche. In addition, the paper offers a comprehensive elucidation of the available functionality. The provided documentation and usage examples are make starting work with the package easy. I totally agree with @jmiszczak on the point of the two distinguishing features of qujax and I do think that it fulfils the need of the community in this area. Would be cool to see its comparison with QC simulation packages using other backends, but this can be left as a direction for future research. I endorse the publication of this work in JOSS. |
Excellent - thank you for your time and expertise in reviewing @meandmytram and @jmiszczak 🎈 @amitkumarj441, do you have a timescale for review completion? ☑️ All the best, Lucy |
Hello @SamDuffield and @amitkumarj441, A heads up that I am going on annual leave until the 8th of August. I will check back on this ASAP when I return as I think we are getting close to finalising this review. @amitkumarj441 please let us know if you need longer than this timeframe to complete your review (8th July). Best, Lucy |
@editorialbot generate pdf |
Given we have had two reviewers with a clear, strong positive consensus I'm happy for this to proceed without a third reviewer. I'll ask our editorial bot to generate a post-review checklist for us both to work through @SamDuffield. You won't be able to tick off yourself, just let me know in the thread when each point is complete. |
Post-Review Checklist for Editor and AuthorsAdditional Author Tasks After Review is Complete
Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance
|
@lucydot thanks for checking through! Hopefully the references are all ok now (I have checked and don't believe the arxiv references have been published elsewhere). We'll look into doing the release and archival early next week |
@SamDuffield the formatting of the reference list is not quite right - another MR (please check if it looks correct after merging ) - CQCL/qujax#91 |
Hi everyone 👋 I'm Gabriel, one of the paper authors. We have just released version 1.0.0 of the package, which will be the one associated with the published paper (there are no changes to the package itself other than the version bump). We also confirm that we double checked the authors, affiliations and ORCIDs in the paper and that these are all correct. The archived repository can be found here https://zenodo.org/record/8268973 and is associated with the DOI 10.5281/zenodo.8268973 . It has the correct title, author details and the license matches the repository license. I believe this ticks all of the check marks in #5504 (comment), but let us know if we missed anything. We will also look into CQCL/qujax#91 and get back to you on that. Thanks! 🙂 |
@editorialbot set v1.0.0 as version |
Done! version is now v1.0.0 |
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.8268973 as archive |
Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.8268973 |
Hello, Just to let you know that I will be away on leave for two weeks, so my replies will be slower than usual. Seeing as we are so close to this completing, I will check in on it! Best, Lucy |
Hello, just updated PR @gamatos once that it is merged I can pass onto the editors-in-chief team for final checks... |
Hi @lucydot, just updated and merged your pull request CQCL/qujax#91! |
@editorialbot generate pdf |
@editorialbot check references |
|
@editorialbot recommend-accept |
|
|
👋 @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#4543, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command |
@editorialbot accept |
|
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
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. |
🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘 |
🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨 Here's what you must now do:
Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team... |
Congratulations @SamDuffield on your article's publication in JOSS! Please consider signing up as a reviewer if you haven't already. Many thanks to @jmiszczak, @amitkumarj441, and @meandmytram for reviewing this, and @lucydot for editing. |
🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉 If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:
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:
|
Submitting author: @SamDuffield (Samuel Duffield)
Repository: https://github.com/CQCL/qujax
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @lucydot
Reviewers: @jmiszczak, @amitkumarj441, @meandmytram
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8268973
Status
Status badge code:
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
@jmiszczak & @amitkumarj441 & @meandmytram, 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:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @lucydot 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 @jmiszczak
📝 Checklist for @meandmytram
📝 Checklist for @amitkumarj441
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: