[PRE REVIEW]: OMEGA-Py: Python Tools for OMEGA Data

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @AStcherbinine (Aurélien Stcherbinine)
Repository: https://github.com/AStcherbinine/omegapy
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-paper
Version: v3.0
Editor: @dfm
Reviewers: @Sierra-MC
Managing EiC: Dan Foreman-Mackey

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/15cf348a29d186e12f49a110f9f787f8"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/15cf348a29d186e12f49a110f9f787f8/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/15cf348a29d186e12f49a110f9f787f8/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/15cf348a29d186e12f49a110f9f787f8)

Author instructions

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

@AStcherbinine 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

- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1016/j.icarus.2022.115366 is OK
- 10.1016/j.icarus.2021.114627 is OK
- 10.5194/epsc2022-847 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.18 s (155.9 files/s, 56881.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                           6            354           2292           3072
SVG                              3              2             21           2285
Markdown                        14            383              0           1503
YAML                             4             14             44            185
TeX                              1              5              0             57
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            28            758           2357           7102
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 638

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

Exonoodle: Synthetic time-series spectra generator for transiting exoplanets
Submitting author: @mmartin-lagarde
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @hpparvi, @kevin218
Similarity score: 0.8307

PyAstroPol: A Python package for the instrumental polarization analysis of the astronomical optics.
Submitting author: @hemanthpruthvi
Handling editor: @pibion (Active)
Reviewers: @aquilesC, @caldarolamartin, @mwcraig
Similarity score: 0.8294

PySPI: A python analysis framework for INTEGRAL/SPI
Submitting author: @BjoernBiltzinger
Handling editor: @christinahedges (Retired)
Reviewers: @tohuvavohu, @dfm
Similarity score: 0.8261

ExoTiC-ISM: A Python package for marginalised exoplanet transit parameters across a grid of systematic instrument models
Submitting author: @ivalaginja
Handling editor: @xuanxu (Active)
Reviewers: @hayesla, @mattpitkin
Similarity score: 0.8256

OceanSpy: A Python package to facilitate ocean model data analysis and visualization
Submitting author: @malmans2
Handling editor: @kthyng (Active)
Reviewers: @tomchor, @platipodium
Similarity score: 0.8228

⚠️ 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 considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[dfm]

@AStcherbinine — Thanks for your submission! All the suitable JOSS editors are currently working at capacity so I'm going to "waitlist" this review until an editor with the relevant expertise is available to take it on. Thanks for your patience!

[AStcherbinine]

Hello, is there any update on the status of this submission?
Best regards,
Aurélien Stcherbinine

[dfm]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

@AStcherbinine — Thanks for your patience! Our editorial team has been stretched thin for the past few months so I'll take this one on. I'll start looking for suitable reviewers, but if you have any recommendations from this list or your network, please let me know. If you list a GitHub username, please don't tag that user (i.e. dfm instead of @dfm). Thanks!

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @dfm is now the editor

[dfm]

👋 @jrenaud90, @AndrewAnnex — Would 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

[AndrewAnnex]

@dfm sorry this got buried in my notifications, I'd like to review but I have a lot on my plate at the moment. How much time would I have to do the review?

[dfm]

@AndrewAnnex — thanks for the response! We aim for a turnaround of 4 weeks, but JOSS reviews are iterative so many take more or less time than that. We ask that reviewers start their review ASAP, and then revisit a few times throughout the revisions. Therefore a review doesn't typically take one large chunk of time. Hope this helps provide some context!

[AndrewAnnex]

@dfm sorry I am just swamped with work and preparing for a conference in early march, I would like to review but won't be available until after the march 15th and I don't want to hold up the review otherwise

[dfm]

Thanks for the update, @AndrewAnnex! If you have any other reviewer suggestions, those would be much appreciated.

[AStcherbinine]

Hi all,
Thanks Andrew for your answer! So will you still be able and willing to review the paper?

[dfm]

@AStcherbinine — the plan is to send this out for review still, but I haven't had luck so far here or via email finding reviewers. As I asked above, please suggest any reviewers from the reviewer database, or your professional network, who you think might be suitable, and I'll reach out to them. Thanks!

[AStcherbinine]

Thanks for your answer!
Yeah I don't have much names in mind... but I'll think about it.

[Sierra-MC]

@dfm I'm happy to review.

[dfm]

@editorialbot add @Sierra-MC as reviewer

Many thanks, @Sierra-MC!! I'm still working on finding a second reviewer, but since we've been waiting on this one for such a long time, I'm going to get the review thread started so that @Sierra-MC can get started while I continue my search. Thanks all for your patience!

[editorialbot]

@Sierra-MC added to the reviewers list!

[dfm]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6566.