[REVIEW]: Paicos: A Python package for analysis of (cosmological) simulations performed with Arepo #6296

editorialbot · 2024-01-29T13:37:17Z

Submitting author: @tberlok (Thomas Berlok)
Repository: https://github.com/tberlok/paicos
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper
Version: v0.1.14
Editor: @JBorrow
Reviewers: @ttricco, @kyleaoman
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10994256

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2ffa030de39bcba942d6a552b5e8f7c7"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2ffa030de39bcba942d6a552b5e8f7c7/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2ffa030de39bcba942d6a552b5e8f7c7/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2ffa030de39bcba942d6a552b5e8f7c7)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@ttricco & @kyleaoman, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @JBorrow know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @ttricco

📝 Checklist for @kyleaoman

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

editorialbot · 2024-01-29T13:37:20Z

Hello humans, 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 · 2024-01-29T13:37:21Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.13 s (889.4 files/s, 155588.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          71           2222           2170           6117
Jupyter Notebook                16              0           5074           1628
Cython                           6            249            204            656
Markdown                         9            150              0            515
TeX                              1             33              0            391
YAML                             6             35             47            170
make                             2             11              8             38
Bourne Shell                     1             14             14             16
TOML                             1              0              0              5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           113           2714           7517           9536
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot · 2024-01-29T13:37:22Z

Wordcount for paper.md is 1147

JBorrow · 2024-01-29T13:37:54Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-01-29T13:37:57Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.21703 is OK
- 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 is OK
- 10.1145/2929908.2929916 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02430 is OK
- 10.1145/2833157.2833162 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2307.06345 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x is OK
- 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stt428 is OK
- 10.1038/nature03597 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2010.118 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-4af1f417-011 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 is OK
- 10.1038/s42254-019-0127-2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1093/mnras/stac1882 may be a valid DOI for title: Hydromagnetic waves in an expanding universe - cosmological MHD code tests using analytic solutions

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-01-29T13:39:28Z

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

editorialbot · 2024-01-29T13:40:14Z

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

JBorrow · 2024-01-29T13:42:22Z

Hi @tberlok, it looks like there is still an issue with a missing DOI for the paper. Also, it may be worth me mentioning that the latest information on how to cite the SWIFT code is available here: https://swift.strw.leidenuniv.nl/docs/CitingSWIFT/index.html.

tberlok · 2024-01-29T13:52:44Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-01-29T13:54:10Z

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

ttricco · 2024-02-05T13:22:26Z

Review checklist for @ttricco

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/tberlok/paicos?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@tberlok) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

JBorrow · 2024-02-17T18:39:49Z

Hi @ttricco and @kyleaoman, I hope the review is progressing nicely. Please, if you can, try to wrap up the review in the next couple of weeks; let me know if you have any questions!

kyleaoman · 2024-02-19T12:29:11Z

Review checklist for @kyleaoman

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/tberlok/paicos?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@tberlok) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

kyleaoman · 2024-02-19T16:10:28Z

I've completed most of my review and have left a number of github issues open for the authors. My checklist above reflects which areas I feel need a little bit of work (but overall the package is in a good state). The exception is the "Performance" item - I should still try to check the functionality of the GPU-accelerated features. My laptop doesn't have a suitable GPU, but I should be able to test this on our local compute cluster. Will try to do this asap.

kyleaoman · 2024-02-20T15:10:15Z

Alright added one last issue around the GPU interactive features. My review is complete, so I leave it with the authors to address the github issues that I've opened to their satisfaction. Happy to iterate on things as needed, just let me know if you (authors/editors) need anything from me in the meantime.

JBorrow · 2024-02-20T15:14:05Z

Hi @kyleaoman, thank you so much! Is it possible for you to reference this review thread in those issues, or do that here, so they are linked together automatically by GitHub? This way we can keep track of progress.

kyleaoman · 2024-02-20T15:50:02Z

tberlok/paicos#47
tberlok/paicos#48
tberlok/paicos#49
tberlok/paicos#50
tberlok/paicos#51
tberlok/paicos#52
tberlok/paicos#53
tberlok/paicos#54
tberlok/paicos#55
tberlok/paicos#56

kyleaoman · 2024-02-20T15:50:59Z

@JBorrow that works I think?

JBorrow · 2024-02-20T15:53:14Z

Yes, thank you!

ttricco · 2024-02-28T02:41:53Z

tberlok/paicos#57

ttricco · 2024-02-28T02:47:06Z

Just to update on my progress, I have worked through most of the review items, and tested the non-GPU code (various ways to install, unit tests, core functionality, etc). The biggest outstanding items for me are around testing the functionality and performance of the GPU versions of the code, which I'll get to in the next couple of days.

JBorrow · 2024-02-28T15:47:30Z

Fantastic, thanks both. @tberlok, do you have any estimate of on what timescale you will be able to address the reviewer's comments?

tberlok · 2024-02-28T15:51:12Z

I have had a look at the reviewers comments, which I will start to address in detail tomorrow. I expect/hope to be done at some point next week.

editorialbot · 2024-04-19T20:13:54Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.21703 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2305.13380 is OK
- 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 is OK
- 10.1145/2929908.2929916 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02430 is OK
- 10.1145/2833157.2833162 is OK
- 10.2312/EGGH/HPG12/033-037 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2307.06345 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x is OK
- 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stt428 is OK
- 10.1038/nature03597 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2010.118 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-4af1f417-011 is OK
- 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 is OK
- 10.1038/s42254-019-0127-2 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stac1882 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: CuPy: A NumPy-Compatible Library for NVIDIA GPU Ca...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Hierarchical Data Format, version 10
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Python and HDF5
- No DOI given, and none found for title: pytest 7.4

INVALID DOIs

- None

JBorrow · 2024-04-19T20:14:39Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-04-19T20:14:41Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-04-19T20:15:23Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.21703 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2305.13380 is OK
- 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 is OK
- 10.1145/2929908.2929916 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02430 is OK
- 10.1145/2833157.2833162 is OK
- 10.2312/EGGH/HPG12/033-037 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2307.06345 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x is OK
- 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stt428 is OK
- 10.1038/nature03597 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2010.118 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-4af1f417-011 is OK
- 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 is OK
- 10.1038/s42254-019-0127-2 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stac1882 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: CuPy: A NumPy-Compatible Library for NVIDIA GPU Ca...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Hierarchical Data Format, version 10
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Python and HDF5
- No DOI given, and none found for title: pytest 7.4

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-04-19T20:16:18Z

👋 @openjournals/aass-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#5254, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

JBorrow · 2024-04-19T20:16:39Z

@tberlok, I'm recommending this paper for acceptance. An Editor in Chief will come in and do the final checks, but from me, that's it! Thank you for your work on this, and thanks again to @ttricco and @kyleaoman for reviewing.

tberlok · 2024-04-19T20:19:44Z

@JBorrow That's amazing, thank you!

tberlok · 2024-04-20T09:21:13Z

@editorialbot generate preprint

editorialbot · 2024-04-20T09:21:43Z

📄 Preprint file created: Find it here in the Artifacts list 📄

dfm · 2024-04-20T09:37:02Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-04-20T09:38:07Z

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

dfm · 2024-04-20T09:43:07Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-04-20T09:43:09Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-04-20T09:43:25Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.21703 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2305.13380 is OK
- 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 is OK
- 10.1145/2929908.2929916 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02430 is OK
- 10.1145/2833157.2833162 is OK
- 10.2312/EGGH/HPG12/033-037 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2307.06345 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x is OK
- 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stt428 is OK
- 10.1038/nature03597 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2010.118 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-4af1f417-011 is OK
- 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 is OK
- 10.1038/s42254-019-0127-2 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stac1882 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: CuPy: A NumPy-Compatible Library for NVIDIA GPU Ca...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Hierarchical Data Format, version 10
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Python and HDF5
- No DOI given, and none found for title: pytest 7.4

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-04-20T09:44:35Z

👋 @openjournals/aass-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#5257, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

dfm · 2024-04-20T09:47:16Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2024-04-20T09:47:17Z

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-04-20T09:53:54Z

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Berlok
  given-names: Thomas
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0466-603X"
- family-names: Jlassi
  given-names: Léna
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9039-294X"
- family-names: Puchwein
  given-names: Ewald
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8778-7587"
- family-names: Haugbølle
  given-names: Troels
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9422-8684"
contact:
- family-names: Berlok
  given-names: Thomas
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0466-603X"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10994256
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Berlok
    given-names: Thomas
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0466-603X"
  - family-names: Jlassi
    given-names: Léna
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9039-294X"
  - family-names: Puchwein
    given-names: Ewald
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8778-7587"
  - family-names: Haugbølle
    given-names: Troels
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9422-8684"
  date-published: 2024-04-20
  doi: 10.21105/joss.06296
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 96
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 6296
  title: "Paicos: A Python package for analysis of (cosmological)
    simulations performed with Arepo"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06296"
  volume: 9
title: "Paicos: A Python package for analysis of (cosmological)
  simulations performed with Arepo"

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

editorialbot · 2024-04-20T09:53:58Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2024-04-20T09:53:59Z

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.06296 joss-papers#5258
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06296
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

dfm · 2024-04-20T10:01:40Z

Many thanks to @ttricco and @kyleaoman for reviewing and to @JBorrow for editing! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you!!

@tberlok — Your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS! ⚡🚀💥

editorialbot · 2024-04-20T10:01:44Z

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06296/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06296)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06296">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06296/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06296/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06296

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

tberlok · 2024-04-20T10:45:06Z

@dfm Thank you for making the final edits and closing this off and thanks to @JBorrow, @ttricco and @kyleaoman for the help getting Paicos ready for publication!

tberlok · 2024-04-20T10:55:50Z

@editorialbot generate preprint

editorialbot · 2024-04-20T10:56:20Z

📄 Preprint file created: Find it here in the Artifacts list 📄

editorialbot added Cython Jupyter Notebook Python review Track: 1 (AASS) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Space Sciences labels Jan 29, 2024

editorialbot assigned JBorrow Jan 29, 2024

editorialbot mentioned this issue Jan 29, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: Paicos: A Python package for analysis of (cosmological) simulations performed with Arepo #6282

Closed

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Apr 19, 2024

dfm mentioned this issue Apr 20, 2024

Edits for JOSS publication tberlok/paicos#76

Merged

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Apr 20, 2024

dfm closed this as completed Apr 20, 2024

[REVIEW]: Paicos: A Python package for analysis of (cosmological) simulations performed with Arepo #6296

[REVIEW]: Paicos: A Python package for analysis of (cosmological) simulations performed with Arepo #6296

Comments

editorialbot commented Jan 29, 2024 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Jan 29, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 29, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 29, 2024

JBorrow commented Jan 29, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 29, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 29, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 29, 2024

JBorrow commented Jan 29, 2024

tberlok commented Jan 29, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 29, 2024

ttricco commented Feb 5, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @ttricco

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

JBorrow commented Feb 17, 2024

kyleaoman commented Feb 19, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @kyleaoman

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

kyleaoman commented Feb 19, 2024

kyleaoman commented Feb 20, 2024

JBorrow commented Feb 20, 2024

kyleaoman commented Feb 20, 2024

kyleaoman commented Feb 20, 2024

JBorrow commented Feb 20, 2024

ttricco commented Feb 28, 2024

ttricco commented Feb 28, 2024

JBorrow commented Feb 28, 2024

tberlok commented Feb 28, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 19, 2024

JBorrow commented Apr 19, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 19, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 19, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 19, 2024

JBorrow commented Apr 19, 2024

tberlok commented Apr 19, 2024

tberlok commented Apr 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 20, 2024

dfm commented Apr 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 20, 2024

dfm commented Apr 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 20, 2024

dfm commented Apr 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 20, 2024

dfm commented Apr 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 20, 2024

tberlok commented Apr 20, 2024

tberlok commented Apr 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Jan 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ttricco commented Feb 5, 2024 •

edited

Loading

kyleaoman commented Feb 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading