[PRE REVIEW]: Umami: A Python toolkit for jet flavour tagging

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @philippgadow (Philipp Gadow)
Repository: https://github.com/umami-hep/umami
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper
Version: 0.20
Editor: @matthewfeickert
Reviewers: @jpata, @hqucms
Managing EiC: Kyle Niemeyer

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/716e013e500b90b73457235354192e1b"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/716e013e500b90b73457235354192e1b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/716e013e500b90b73457235354192e1b/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/716e013e500b90b73457235354192e1b)

Author instructions

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

@philippgadow 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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.33 s (673.6 files/s, 144998.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                         109           5446           9435          21992
YAML                            65            817            672           5408
Markdown                        31            747              0           2227
JSON                             6              1              0            528
TeX                              1             33             30            319
Dockerfile                       4             19              4             34
Bourne Shell                     3              4              2             16
TOML                             1              1              0             12
make                             1              4              6              9
reStructuredText                 1              6             10              7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           222           7078          10159          30552
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 2554

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08001 is OK
- 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08003 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.6467676 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.7806395 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101917-021019 is OK
- 10.3390/app122010574 is OK
- 10.1088/1748-0221/15/12/p12012 is OK
- 10.1103/physrevd.101.056019 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.6619768 is OK
- 10.1038/nature14539 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1163/1574-9347_dnp_e612900 may be a valid DOI for title: Keras

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot invite @matthewfeickert as editor

Hi @matthewfeickert, could you edit this one as well?

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[matthewfeickert]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @matthewfeickert is now the editor

[matthewfeickert]

👋 @philippgadow I'll be the editor for this submission. The next step is for me to find reviewers over the coming days, but if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers please mention them here (without tagging them with an @, e.g. matthewfeickert).

[matthewfeickert]

👋 @hqucms As you've been recommended to me by several of your CMS colleagues as someone in HEP with expertise in software development, flavour tagging, machine learning, and Python would you be available and willing to review this submission? If you are interested in reviewing we would like reviewers to aim to have their preliminary reviews (not fully finished!) completed within 3-4 weeks. We understand that everyone is busy and so even if you are interested your schedule might prohibit you from accepting this review at this time. Please let me know if you have any questions.

[matthewfeickert]

👋 @jpata As you have are a researcher in HEP with expertise in software development, flavour tagging, machine learning, and Python would you be available and willing to review this submission? If you are interested in reviewing we would like reviewers to aim to have their preliminary reviews (not fully finished!) completed within 3-4 weeks. We understand that everyone is busy and so even if you are interested your schedule might prohibit you from accepting this review at this time. Please let me know if you have any questions.

[jpata]

@matthewfeickert I can take the review 🙂

[matthewfeickert]

@editorialbot add @jpata as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@jpata added to the reviewers list!

[matthewfeickert]

@editorialbot add @hqucms as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@hqucms added to the reviewers list!

[matthewfeickert]

@philippgadow We now have two reviewers (@jpata, @hqucms) so I'll start the review.

We need a minimum of two reviewers, but additional reviews are very welcome.

[matthewfeickert]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #5833.