[PRE REVIEW]: atems: Analysis tools for TEM images of carbonaceous particles

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @tsipkens (Timothy A. Sipkens)
Repository: https://github.com/tsipkens/atems
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.2
Editor: @diazrenata
Reviewers: @jonbmartin, @tytell
Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a720aa990aac5807797d97a01da5a6b4"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a720aa990aac5807797d97a01da5a6b4/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a720aa990aac5807797d97a01da5a6b4/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a720aa990aac5807797d97a01da5a6b4)

Author instructions

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

@tsipkens 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=0.24 s (370.7 files/s, 33783.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MATLAB                          59           1530           1867           2856
XML                              6              0              0            661
Markdown                         6            261              0            420
TeX                              1             17              0            165
Python                           2             47             37             96
JSON                             8              0              0             71
YAML                             4              5              4             64
Bourne Shell                     1              1              5              2
SVG                              2              0              0              2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            89           1861           1913           4337
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 998

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.10.002 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2020.105699 is OK
- 10.1016/j.powtec.2021.04.026 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2023.106211 is OK
- 10.1080/02786826.2014.932896 is OK
- 10.1080/02786826.2014.955565 is OK
- 10.1016/j.powtec.2016.03.027 is OK
- 10.4271/2015-01-1991 is OK
- 10.1038/nmeth.2089 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2019.105470 is OK
- 10.1016/j.powtec.2014.04.040 is OK
- 10.1016/j.fuel.2020.118478 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2019.105448 is OK
- 10.1080/02786826.2020.1758623 is OK
- 10.1016/j.powtec.2019.02.003 is OK
- 10.1021/es501809b is OK
- 10.1016/j.combustflame.2019.03.018 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

PoreSpy: A Python Toolkit for Quantitative Analysis of Porous Media Images
Submitting author: @jgostick
Handling editor: @usethedata (Retired)
Reviewers: @yxqd, @cr458
Similarity score: 0.8285

bmiptools: BioMaterials Image Processing Tools
Submitting author: @lcmpikg
Handling editor: @AoifeHughes (Active)
Reviewers: @taw10, @mooniean
Similarity score: 0.8226

sumo: Command-line tools for plotting and analysis of periodic ab initio calculations
Submitting author: @utf
Handling editor: @kyleniemeyer (Active)
Reviewers: @jarvist, @cfgoldsmith
Similarity score: 0.8145

patRoon 2.0: Improved non-target analysis workflows including automated transformation product screening
Submitting author: @rickhelmus
Handling editor: @KristinaRiemer (Retired)
Reviewers: @wesleyburr, @hechth
Similarity score: 0.8143

Ising_OPV v4.0: Experimental Tomography Data Import, Interpretation, and Analysis
Submitting author: @MikeHeiber
Handling editor: @katyhuff (Retired)
Reviewers: @myousefi2016, @stuartcampbell, @mdoucet
Similarity score: 0.8140

⚠️ 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.

[kthyng]

Hi @tsipkens and thanks for your submission. I am going to add it to our waitlist as we wait for a relevant editor to become available. In the meantime please make sure your paper has a "Statement of Need" section. Thanks for your patience.

[tsipkens]

@kthyng Thanks. Noted. I will make sure this is incorporated.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot add @diazrenata as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @diazrenata is now the editor

[diazrenata]

Hi @tsipkens! To help start the review process, could you look through the reviewer database here and/or your own network, and suggest 5 possible, non-conflicted, reviewers?

[tsipkens]

Excellent! @diazrenata, I will give this some further thought. I will also incorporate the other changes suggested in this thread to make the format more suitable for JOSS.

[tsipkens]

@diazrenata I have updated the paper to have a statement of need. It should be in the corresponding repository above.
Some candidate reviewers:

• mdpetters (or lab members),
• lewisfish
• jonbmartin
• emilikv
• ajinkyakadu

[diazrenata]

@tsipkens Thank you! Just as an update, I am still working to find reviewers for this submission!

[diazrenata]

Hi @jonbmartin, @ajinkyakadu - would you be available and interested in reviewing this submission to JOSS?

[ajinkyakadu]

Hi Renata: Sorry for the late reply. I'm currently overcommitted with several projects and wouldn't be able to dedicate the necessary time and attention to review this submission to JOSS effectively. Best, Ajinkya

…

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:01 PM Renata Diaz ***@***.***> wrote: Hi @jonbmartin <https://github.com/jonbmartin>, @ajinkyakadu <https://github.com/ajinkyakadu> - would you be available and interested in reviewing this submission to JOSS? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#5962 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABHEIC6XIYL5KQK3MJY4WRTYG6ICNAVCNFSM6AAAAAA6HYNGMWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQMZSGYYTQMJTHE> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[jonbmartin]

Hi Renata, I should be able to review this article if you still need a reviewer. Please let me know. Jonathan

…

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 2:01 PM Renata Diaz ***@***.***> wrote: Hi @jonbmartin <https://github.com/jonbmartin>, @ajinkyakadu <https://github.com/ajinkyakadu> - would you be available and interested in reviewing this submission to JOSS? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#5962 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKVCUTYMNNX3V5T5LVNFBUTYG6ICPAVCNFSM6AAAAAA6HYNGMWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQMZSGYYTQMJTHE> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[diazrenata]

Hi @jonbmartin, that would be wonderful - thank you! I will add you as a reviewer now. I'm still looking for a second reviewer, and then we can move forward!

[diazrenata]

@ajinkyakadu, not a problem, and thank you for getting back to me!

[diazrenata]

@editorialbot add @jonbmartin as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@jonbmartin added to the reviewers list!

[diazrenata]

@rickhelmus - would you be available and interested in reviewing this submission to JOSS?

[rickhelmus]

Hi @diazrenata ,

Unfortunately, currently I'm quite loaded with other work and I'm unsure how well I can judge a Matlab project. Happy to contribute in the future though!

Thanks,
Rick

[diazrenata]

@rickhelmus, no worries! Thanks for letting me know.

[diazrenata]

@lcmpikg, would you be able and amenable to reviewing this submission to JOSS?

[diazrenata]

@adamltyson, would you be able and interested in reviewing this submission to JOSS? I ask particularly because it's a MATLAB submission for image processing of microscopy.

[adamltyson]

@diazrenata it's a bit outside my expertise, and unfortunately I don't have the time needed to review this properly at the moment.

[diazrenata]

@adamltyson Not a problem - thank you for responding so quickly!

[diazrenata]

@jonatanalvelid, would you be able and interested in reviewing this submission to JOSS? I ask particularly because it's a MATLAB submission for image processing of microscopy.

[jonatanalvelid]

Hi @diazrenata, thanks for asking but I am afraid I do not have enough time currently for performing this review. Would be happy to contribute in the future however, hopefully with better timing.

[diazrenata]

@jonatanalvelid, not a problem! I appreciate your willingness to review in future!

[diazrenata]

@vsangelidakis, would you be able and interested in reviewing this submission to JOSS? I ask particularly because it's a MATLAB submission for image processing of microscopy.

[vsangelidakis]

Hi @diazrenata Thanks for the invitation - I am currently unavailable due to other commitments. All the best, V

[diazrenata]

@adamltyson, @rickhelmus, @jonatanalvelid, @vsangelidakis - thank you for letting me know your availability! May I ask if any of you have any suggestions for others, maybe in your lab or network, who might have the right expertise and be available to review?

[diazrenata]

@mdpetters - would you be available and interested in reviewing this submission to JOSS?

(I believe I emailed you with a review invitation back in November - I'm not sure if I reached the correct address, so I'm reaching out via GitHub. I apologize if this is redundant!)

[kthyng]

@tsipkens you can see the difficulty in finding reviewers for this submission. Can you dig deeper into your extended network to suggest 5 more people?

[diazrenata]

@tytell Thank you so very much for agreeing to review this submission! I'll add you as a reviewer here.

[diazrenata]

@editorialbot add @tytell as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@tytell added to the reviewers list!

[diazrenata]

@tytell and @jonbmartin, I'm going to go ahead and initiate the review process in a new issue. @tytell, I know you won't have time to do this right away - no problem! I'm starting the issue so @jonbmartin is able to work on it in the meantime.

[diazrenata]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6416.