[PRE REVIEW]: Fitspy: A Python package for spectral decomposition

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @patquem (Patrick Quéméré)
Repository: https://github.com/CEA-MetroCarac/fitspy
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 2023.3
Editor: @phibeck
Reviewers: @maurov, @FCMeng
Managing EiC: Kevin M. Moerman

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/971a02868d903c0b7c0cbc3d1cd3d139"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/971a02868d903c0b7c0cbc3d1cd3d139/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/971a02868d903c0b7c0cbc3d1cd3d139/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/971a02868d903c0b7c0cbc3d1cd3d139)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @patquem. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@patquem if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, 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]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.11813 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.8092679 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.05 s (558.6 files/s, 95485.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          18            667            773           2264
JSON                             1              0              0            251
Markdown                         3            129              0            250
TeX                              1              1              0             52
YAML                             2              5              4             45
TOML                             1              0              0              3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            26            802            777           2865
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1206

[editorialbot]

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

[teuben]

I'm just an innocent bystander, but really like the the way it looks (not even having used it) but have a few comments

1. the name is unfortunately confusing, there is the deprecated pyfits, now absorbed in astropy. I know this package is doing fitting, but since it's in the spectral domain only, perhaps the name could reflect that better and not confuse the name with the FITS format.
2. in the bibliography I would expect there to be a reference pyspeckit and arguably specutils
   https://ascl.net/1902.012 and https://ascl.net/1109.001

[patquem]

Hi @teuben,

Thank you very much for your comments.

Regarding your 1st comment, I did not know the FITS format.
Finding a name for an application is getting more and more complicated. For the first 4 months of the project, it was called: spectrafit, but when I thought of a pypi repository, that name was already in use. 2-3 months ago I changed to fitspy (not used in pypi and as a hint at hyperspy, a library which is a reference in my community). Since then, I have been promoting the tool with that name. I'm afraid that a new change is no longer confusing in my community.
but by any chance, do you have a relevant name to suggest to me? : )

Regarding your 2nd comment: you are absolutely right. I will add these 2 references which are relevant in the article.

(Note that I'm going on vacation tomorrow for 2 weeks. I will therefore make the corrections on my return (end of July).)

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@patquem thanks for this submission. I am the AEiC for this track and here to help with initial steps to to ensure this work is in scope for JOSS. On the latter point, I have just triggered a scope review by our editorial board. This is to review if this work conforms to our substantial scholarly effort criteria. This scope review should be completed within about 2 weeks.

[patquem]

changes:

• references to specutils and pyspeckit added
• acknowledgments revisited

@editorialbot generate pdf

[zhubonan]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[patquem]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @patquem, 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

[patquem]

Here is a list of 5 potential reviewers:
FCMeng
larsenkg
tillsten
maurov
ivergara

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@patquem the editorial board has determined this work may be in scope for JOSS. Hence I'll now remove the query scope label and we'll proceed to find a handling editor.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot invite @phibeck as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot assign @phibeck as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @phibeck is now the editor

[phibeck]

Hi @patquem, thanks for your submission and for suggesting possible reviewers. I'll send out invites to potential reviewers next.

[phibeck]

👋 @Tillsten, @maurov, & @ivergara, would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[patquem]

@phibeck
Thank you for accepting to be the editor

[maurov]

@phibeck thank you for inviting me to review this submission to JOSS. Yes, I am happy to accept it.

[phibeck]

Great, thank you @maurov!

[phibeck]

@editorialbot add @maurov as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@maurov added to the reviewers list!

[phibeck]

👋 @jwuttke, @larsenkg & @FCMeng, would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[FCMeng]

@phibeck Thanks for the invitation! I am happy to review this submission.

[phibeck]

@FCMeng that's great, thank you!

[phibeck]

@editorialbot add @FCMeng as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@FCMeng added to the reviewers list!

[phibeck]

Thank you, @maurov and @FCMeng for agreeing to review! I'll close the Pre Review now and start the Review process in another issue.

[phibeck]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #5868.