[PRE REVIEW]: NEoST: A Python package for nested sampling of the neutron star equation of state

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @drannawatts (Anna Watts)
Repository: https://github.com/xpsi-group/neost
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.9.1
Editor: @adonath
Reviewers: @ziatdinovmax, @chaitanyaafle
Managing EiC: Dan Foreman-Mackey

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c6d09ac472ec540a2d1f6507c5c277e0"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c6d09ac472ec540a2d1f6507c5c277e0/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c6d09ac472ec540a2d1f6507c5c277e0/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c6d09ac472ec540a2d1f6507c5c277e0)

Author instructions

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

@drannawatts 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=0.05 s (1030.9 files/s, 150389.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          24            587            421           1755
Cython                           3            487             63            815
TeX                              1             46              0            498
Jupyter Notebook                 6              0           1994            357
reStructuredText                16            299            237            353
YAML                             4             11              7            135
Markdown                         1             18              0             65
make                             1              4              7             10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            56           1452           2729           3988
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 891

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04977 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ab451a is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ab822f is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ac089a is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103051 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz654 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ac03b8 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.011001 is OK
- 10.1016/j.physrep.2015.12.005 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102313-025446 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ppnp.2020.103770 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRev.55.364 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRev.55.374 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1202077 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jpdc.2007.09.005 is OK
- 10.1109/99.660313 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2010.118 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.58 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03021 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00024 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[dfm]

@editorialbot query scope

@drannawatts — Thanks for your submission! Given the short development history of the code, I have submitted this pre-review for editorial review. This usually takes a week or two and I'll report back here as soon as I hear back from the rest of the editorial board.

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[drannawatts]

@editorialbot query scope

@drannawatts — Thanks for your submission! Given the short development history of the code, I have submitted this pre-review for editorial review. This usually takes a week or two and I'll report back here as soon as I hear back from the rest of the editorial board.

The code has actually existed and been developed in private repositories for much longer (we've been using it in analysis and publications since 2019). We moved the whole thing over to a new public repository with a clean history specifically because we wanted to finally make it public.

[drannawatts]

I just double checked the old private 'preneost' github repository - commit history there dates back to 2020. Happy to provide proof of this if required!

[adonath]

@editorialbot assign @adonath as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @adonath is now the editor

[adonath]

Thanks @drannawatts! I'm happy to edit the submission. In case you have suggestions for reviewers please let me know. Just mention their names without tagging (using @) them here in thread.

[drannawatts]

Great, thanks @adonath ! Possible reviewers might include the authors of this paper: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230401035A/abstract

[adonath]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

UltraNest - a robust, general purpose Bayesian inference engine
Submitting author: @JohannesBuchner
Handling editor: @fboehm (Active)
Reviewers: @mattpitkin, @ziatdinovmax
Similarity score: 0.8399

The Dusty Evolved Star Kit (DESK): A Python package for fitting the Spectral Energy Distribution of Evolved Stars
Submitting author: @s-goldman
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @Deech08, @TomGoffrey
Similarity score: 0.8275

nestcheck: error analysis, diagnostic tests and plots for nested sampling calculations
Submitting author: @ejhigson
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @ziotom78, @mattpitkin
Similarity score: 0.8246

SNEWPY: A Data Pipeline from Supernova Simulations to Neutrino Signals
Submitting author: @JostMigenda
Handling editor: @dfm (Active)
Reviewers: @apizzuto, @PeterDenton
Similarity score: 0.8244

ExoTETHyS: Tools for Exoplanetary Transits around host stars
Submitting author: @gmorello
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @steven-murray, @williamjameshandley
Similarity score: 0.8244

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[adonath]

@editorialbot add @ziatdinovmax as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@ziatdinovmax added to the reviewers list!

[adonath]

@editorialbot add @chaitanyaafle as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@chaitanyaafle added to the reviewers list!

[adonath]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6003.