[REVIEW]: Hyperelastics.jl: A Julia package for hyperelastic1 material modelling with a large collection of models #6314

editorialbot · 2024-02-01T23:56:05Z

Submitting author: @cfarm6 (Carson Farmer)
Repository: https://github.com/TRACER-LULab/Hyperelastics.jl
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.1.3
Editor: @AnjaliSandip
Reviewers: @fb456, @SotaYoshida
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10903235

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/439f08d1e0ca104c5e8e1da37a05d3ce"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/439f08d1e0ca104c5e8e1da37a05d3ce/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/439f08d1e0ca104c5e8e1da37a05d3ce/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/439f08d1e0ca104c5e8e1da37a05d3ce)

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

@fb456 & @SotaYoshida, 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 @AnjaliSandip 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 @SotaYoshida

📝 Checklist for @fb456

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

editorialbot · 2024-02-01T23:56:08Z

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 · 2024-02-01T23:56:11Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.05 s (828.4 files/s, 178153.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                           29           1062            439           5353
TeX                              2            156              0           1512
XML                              1              4              0            464
Markdown                         6             72              0            321
YAML                             4              6              9            143
TOML                             3              7              0            130
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            45           1307            448           7923
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot · 2024-02-01T23:56:12Z

Wordcount for paper.md is 1072

editorialbot · 2024-02-01T23:57:37Z

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

SotaYoshida · 2024-02-02T00:11:20Z

Review checklist for @SotaYoshida

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/TRACER-LULab/Hyperelastics.jl?
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 (@cfarm6) 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?

SotaYoshida · 2024-02-02T00:26:41Z

@cfarm6 I started reviewing.
If some of the checklists are blank, it doesn't mean your code doesn't meet those items, it just means I'm still checking them.
I'll probably have some time next week to run your code and read docs, so I'll give you some initial feedback (hopefully) next week.
Thanks.

fb456 · 2024-02-02T11:28:18Z

Review checklist for @fb456

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/TRACER-LULab/Hyperelastics.jl?
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 (@cfarm6) 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?

fb456 · 2024-02-02T14:20:57Z

Hi @cfarm6!

I've also started the review. I have submitted a few issues already that should be addressed, specifically about:
https://github.com/TRACER-LULab/Hyperelastics.jl/issues/109: software installation
https://github.com/TRACER-LULab/Hyperelastics.jl/issues/110: Statement of Need and Community Guidelines in the docs
https://github.com/TRACER-LULab/Hyperelastics.jl/issues/111: A bug I encountered when running the Example
https://github.com/TRACER-LULab/Hyperelastics.jl/issues/112: A few references that could be added in the paper

I'll continue my review next week and let you know if any more issues arise.

AnjaliSandip · 2024-02-12T20:01:11Z

@SotaYoshida Just a kind reminder

SotaYoshida · 2024-02-14T06:38:38Z

Thank you for reminding me.
We (I) have dealt with the above issues, and I am still reviewing the code and documentation.

SotaYoshida · 2024-02-16T04:36:00Z

This package is an excellent effort to implement over 70 hyperelastic material models in the Julia language.
This would help students, newcomers and also experts in the field to work on their own materials.
The paper and documentation are both well written.
I recommend publication of this paper and package.

Minor comments from me are as follows:

It would be better to highlight the features of the package and the intended audience or users in the paper, as raised in the issue.
I suggest authors to describe the assumed and recommended environment (OS and version of Julia guaranteed) of the user in the document. Such information can be found at CI settings and elsewhere, but it would help prevent the readers from using this package in a wrong way.

AnjaliSandip · 2024-02-22T18:45:02Z

@fb456 This is just a kind reminder to complete the review process.

fb456 · 2024-02-23T17:28:46Z

Hi,
I also recommend publication provided the issues in the link
TRACER-LULab/Hyperelastics.jl#121 (comment)
are addressed. This is regarding the general structure of the paper.

AnjaliSandip · 2024-02-26T23:55:22Z

@cfarm6 can you address the issues stated?

cfarm6 · 2024-02-27T16:45:40Z

@AnjaliSandip Yes. I will have the corrections made by the end of this week.

AnjaliSandip · 2024-03-11T15:33:59Z

@cfarm6, could you provide a timeline for wrapping up the corrections suggested?

cfarm6 · 2024-03-14T12:46:20Z

@AnjaliSandip Yes, I will be finishing up the suggested corrections later today.

cfarm6 · 2024-03-15T03:56:17Z

@AnjaliSandip The issues have been addressed by adding a section for comparisons with other open-source and commercial packages and a section detailing a common use case for the package.
paper.pdf

AnjaliSandip · 2024-03-15T23:49:05Z

@SotaYoshida @fb456 Could you review the changes made?

fb456 · 2024-03-16T12:34:32Z

Hi,

I think the issues above have been addressed. One very very minor comment from me is that, referring to the comment above, the information about the recommended version of Julia could also be included in the docs.

Otherwise, I recommend the publication of the paper and the package!

cfarm6 · 2024-03-16T13:37:34Z

@fb456 I have added statements to the installation instructions in the README and the documentation to reference the compatible Julia versions. In addition, the package is unavailable in older versions as I have only listed compatibility for Julia 1.9+ in the Project.toml file. The updates in the documentation should appear in about 20 minutes once they finish rebuilding.

SotaYoshida · 2024-03-18T08:14:41Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-03-18T08:15:57Z

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

SotaYoshida · 2024-03-19T06:41:42Z

@AnjaliSandip Confirmed the changes made. I am happy to recommend this paper and package for publication.

AnjaliSandip · 2024-04-01T16:19:50Z

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.10903235 as archive

editorialbot · 2024-04-01T16:19:53Z

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.10903235

AnjaliSandip · 2024-04-01T16:20:14Z

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

Double check authors and affiliations (including ORCIDs)
Make a release of the software with the latest changes from the review and post the version number here. This is the version that will be used in the JOSS paper.
Archive the release on Zenodo/figshare/etc and post the DOI here.
Make sure that the title and author list (including ORCIDs) in the archive match those in the JOSS paper.
Make sure that the license listed for the archive is the same as the software license.

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance

Read the text of the paper and offer comments/corrections (as either a list or a pull request)
Check that the archive title, author list, version tag, and the license are correct
Set archive DOI with @editorialbot set <DOI here> as archive
Set version with @editorialbot set <version here> as version
Double check rendering of paper with @editorialbot generate pdf
Specifically check the references with @editorialbot check references and ask author(s) to update as needed
Recommend acceptance with @editorialbot recommend-accept

AnjaliSandip · 2024-04-01T16:24:31Z

@editorialbot set v0.1.3 as version

editorialbot · 2024-04-01T16:24:34Z

Done! version is now v0.1.3

AnjaliSandip · 2024-04-01T16:24:53Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-04-01T16:26:10Z

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

AnjaliSandip · 2024-04-01T16:27:11Z

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot · 2024-04-01T16:28:03Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.cma.2024.116751 is OK
- 10.1115/1.4063348 is OK
- 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25379 is OK
- 10.1016/j.commatsci.2024.112885 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5519971 is OK
- 10.1515/bmt-2014-0146 is OK
- 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2013.10.006 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7738525 is OK
- 10.1002/cnm.1105 is OK
- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1063/1.1712836 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2014.08.018 is OK
- 10.1002/app.41718 is OK
- 10.1002/polb.20308 is OK
- 10.1063/1.1712836 is OK
- 10.1039/tf9433900241 is OK
- 10.1063/1.1748111 is OK
- 10.1002/app.1975.070190723 is OK
- 10.1016/0022-5096(79)90034-6 is OK
- 10.5254/1.3538289 is OK
- 10.1016/S0022-5096(97)00028-8 is OK
- 10.1016/s0020-7683(03)00086-6 is OK
- 10.1007/s10659-010-9279-0 is OK
- 10.1002/app.41718 is OK
- 10.1155/2019/2832059 is OK
- 10.1007/bf00017296 is OK
- 10.1115/1.3225782 is OK
- 10.5254/1.3538706 is OK
- 10.1016/j.nanoms.2021.07.003 is OK
- 10.1002/polb.20308 is OK
- 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2006)132:1(54) is OK
- 10.1016/j.crme.2009.12.007 is OK
- 10.5254/rct.19.80387 is OK
- 10.1002/pen.10948 is OK
- 10.1007/bf01597242 is OK
- 10.1016/0020-7225(68)90006-2 is OK
- 10.1002/pol.1958.1202811814 is OK
- 10.1016/s0997-7538(99)00147-3 is OK
- 10.1016/j.euromechsol.2012.09.010 is OK
- 10.1007/bf01410637 is OK
- 10.1007/bfb0115432 is OK
- 10.1007/bf00254166 is OK
- 10.5254/1.3538357 is OK
- 10.1016/0021-9290(87)90262-4 is OK
- 10.1002/(sici)1099-0488(19970915)35:12<1919::aid-polb7>3.0.co;2-k is OK
- 10.5254/1.3547687 is OK
- 10.1007/s10659-005-4408-x is OK
- 10.1177/1081286507076405 is OK
- 10.1007/s10659-006-9085-x is OK
- 10.1063/1.1710039 is OK
- 10.1063/1.1661660 is OK
- 10.5254/1.3542910 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2004.03.016 is OK
- 10.5254/1.3547576 is OK
- 10.22059/jcamech.2018.245070.204 is OK
- 10.1063/1.1586471 is OK
- 10.1021/ma00231a022 is OK
- 10.1021/ma00231a023 is OK
- 10.1016/0032-3861(86)90231-4 is OK
- 10.1021/ma00198a026 is OK
- 10.1016/s1089-3156(98)00010-5 is OK
- 10.1021/ma970364k is OK
- 10.1063/1.1723785 is OK
- 10.1016/0022-5096(93)90013-6 is OK
- 10.1088/0370-1328/92/1/303 is OK
- 10.5254/1.3538822 is OK
- 10.1016/s0032-3861(03)00411-7 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmps.2004.03.011 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmps.2004.10.006 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2008.08.037 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmps.2013.03.009 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmps.2016.05.030 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmps.2018.04.016 is OK
- 10.1098/rspa.1979.0163 is OK
- 10.1016/0093-6413(92)90021-2 is OK
- 10.1016/0022-5096(93)90043-f is OK
- 10.1016/s0020-7225(02)00140-4 is OK
- 10.1007/s004190000102 is OK
- 10.2324/gomu.65.517 is OK
- 10.1177/10812865211001094 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Calculation of rubber parts
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A new isotropic hyperelastic strain energy functio...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A new constitutive model for rubber-like materials
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Scratch behavior of polymers

INVALID DOIs

- None

AnjaliSandip · 2024-04-01T16:29:02Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-04-01T16:29:05Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-04-01T16:30:19Z

👋 @openjournals/pe-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#5196, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2024-04-01T16:30:25Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.cma.2024.116751 is OK
- 10.1115/1.4063348 is OK
- 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25379 is OK
- 10.1016/j.commatsci.2024.112885 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5519971 is OK
- 10.1515/bmt-2014-0146 is OK
- 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2013.10.006 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7738525 is OK
- 10.1002/cnm.1105 is OK
- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1063/1.1712836 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2014.08.018 is OK
- 10.1002/app.41718 is OK
- 10.1002/polb.20308 is OK
- 10.1063/1.1712836 is OK
- 10.1039/tf9433900241 is OK
- 10.1063/1.1748111 is OK
- 10.1002/app.1975.070190723 is OK
- 10.1016/0022-5096(79)90034-6 is OK
- 10.5254/1.3538289 is OK
- 10.1016/S0022-5096(97)00028-8 is OK
- 10.1016/s0020-7683(03)00086-6 is OK
- 10.1007/s10659-010-9279-0 is OK
- 10.1002/app.41718 is OK
- 10.1155/2019/2832059 is OK
- 10.1007/bf00017296 is OK
- 10.1115/1.3225782 is OK
- 10.5254/1.3538706 is OK
- 10.1016/j.nanoms.2021.07.003 is OK
- 10.1002/polb.20308 is OK
- 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2006)132:1(54) is OK
- 10.1016/j.crme.2009.12.007 is OK
- 10.5254/rct.19.80387 is OK
- 10.1002/pen.10948 is OK
- 10.1007/bf01597242 is OK
- 10.1016/0020-7225(68)90006-2 is OK
- 10.1002/pol.1958.1202811814 is OK
- 10.1016/s0997-7538(99)00147-3 is OK
- 10.1016/j.euromechsol.2012.09.010 is OK
- 10.1007/bf01410637 is OK
- 10.1007/bfb0115432 is OK
- 10.1007/bf00254166 is OK
- 10.5254/1.3538357 is OK
- 10.1016/0021-9290(87)90262-4 is OK
- 10.1002/(sici)1099-0488(19970915)35:12<1919::aid-polb7>3.0.co;2-k is OK
- 10.5254/1.3547687 is OK
- 10.1007/s10659-005-4408-x is OK
- 10.1177/1081286507076405 is OK
- 10.1007/s10659-006-9085-x is OK
- 10.1063/1.1710039 is OK
- 10.1063/1.1661660 is OK
- 10.5254/1.3542910 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2004.03.016 is OK
- 10.5254/1.3547576 is OK
- 10.22059/jcamech.2018.245070.204 is OK
- 10.1063/1.1586471 is OK
- 10.1021/ma00231a022 is OK
- 10.1021/ma00231a023 is OK
- 10.1016/0032-3861(86)90231-4 is OK
- 10.1021/ma00198a026 is OK
- 10.1016/s1089-3156(98)00010-5 is OK
- 10.1021/ma970364k is OK
- 10.1063/1.1723785 is OK
- 10.1016/0022-5096(93)90013-6 is OK
- 10.1088/0370-1328/92/1/303 is OK
- 10.5254/1.3538822 is OK
- 10.1016/s0032-3861(03)00411-7 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmps.2004.03.011 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmps.2004.10.006 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2008.08.037 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmps.2013.03.009 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmps.2016.05.030 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmps.2018.04.016 is OK
- 10.1098/rspa.1979.0163 is OK
- 10.1016/0093-6413(92)90021-2 is OK
- 10.1016/0022-5096(93)90043-f is OK
- 10.1016/s0020-7225(02)00140-4 is OK
- 10.1007/s004190000102 is OK
- 10.2324/gomu.65.517 is OK
- 10.1177/10812865211001094 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Calculation of rubber parts
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A new isotropic hyperelastic strain energy functio...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A new constitutive model for rubber-like materials
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Scratch behavior of polymers

INVALID DOIs

- None

kyleniemeyer · 2024-04-02T20:13:37Z

Hi @cfarm6, I'm doing some final checks before publishing.

In the paper text, can you remove the redundant "figure" word before the Figure 1 reference?
In the second paragraph of the Use Case section, please correct "The results are can then be plotted..."
In the Availability section, it should be "GitHub".

cfarm6 · 2024-04-02T21:06:22Z

@kyleniemeyer Thank you. Those changes have been made.

kyleniemeyer · 2024-04-02T21:13:33Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-04-02T21:15:16Z

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

kyleniemeyer · 2024-04-02T21:15:54Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2024-04-02T21:15:56Z

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

editorialbot · 2024-04-02T21:23:12Z

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: Farmer
  given-names: Carson
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0456-8301"
- family-names: Medina
  given-names: Hector
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1014-2275"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10903235
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Farmer
    given-names: Carson
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0456-8301"
  - family-names: Medina
    given-names: Hector
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1014-2275"
  date-published: 2024-04-02
  doi: 10.21105/joss.06314
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 96
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 6314
  title: "Hyperelastics.jl: A Julia package for hyperelastic material
    modelling with a large collection of models"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06314"
  volume: 9
title: "Hyperelastics.jl: A Julia package for hyperelastic material
  modelling with a large collection of models"

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 · 2024-04-02T21:23:17Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2024-04-02T21:23:18Z

🚨🚨🚨 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.06314 joss-papers#5200
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06314
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

kyleniemeyer · 2024-04-02T21:35:54Z

Congratulations @cfarm6 on your article's publication in JOSS! Please consider signing up as a reviewer if you haven't already.

Many thanks to @fb456 and @SotaYoshida for reviewing this, and @AnjaliSandip for editing.

editorialbot · 2024-04-02T21:35:55Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.06314/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06314)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06314">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06314/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06314/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06314

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

editorialbot added Julia review TeX Track: 3 (PE) Physics and Engineering labels Feb 1, 2024

editorialbot assigned AnjaliSandip Feb 1, 2024

editorialbot mentioned this issue Feb 1, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: Hyperelastics.jl: A Julia package for hyperelastic1 material modelling with a large collection of models #6250

Closed

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Apr 1, 2024

openjournals deleted a comment from editorialbot Apr 1, 2024

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Apr 2, 2024

kyleniemeyer closed this as completed Apr 2, 2024

[REVIEW]: Hyperelastics.jl: A Julia package for hyperelastic1 material modelling with a large collection of models #6314

[REVIEW]: Hyperelastics.jl: A Julia package for hyperelastic1 material modelling with a large collection of models #6314

Comments

editorialbot commented Feb 1, 2024 • edited

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Feb 1, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 1, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 1, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 1, 2024

SotaYoshida commented Feb 2, 2024 • edited

Review checklist for @SotaYoshida

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

SotaYoshida commented Feb 2, 2024

fb456 commented Feb 2, 2024 • edited

Review checklist for @fb456

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

fb456 commented Feb 2, 2024

AnjaliSandip commented Feb 12, 2024

SotaYoshida commented Feb 14, 2024

SotaYoshida commented Feb 16, 2024

AnjaliSandip commented Feb 22, 2024

fb456 commented Feb 23, 2024 • edited

AnjaliSandip commented Feb 26, 2024

cfarm6 commented Feb 27, 2024

AnjaliSandip commented Mar 11, 2024

cfarm6 commented Mar 14, 2024

cfarm6 commented Mar 15, 2024

AnjaliSandip commented Mar 15, 2024

fb456 commented Mar 16, 2024

cfarm6 commented Mar 16, 2024

SotaYoshida commented Mar 18, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 18, 2024

SotaYoshida commented Mar 19, 2024

AnjaliSandip commented Apr 1, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 1, 2024

AnjaliSandip commented Apr 1, 2024 • edited

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance

AnjaliSandip commented Apr 1, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 1, 2024

AnjaliSandip commented Apr 1, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 1, 2024

AnjaliSandip commented Apr 1, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 1, 2024

AnjaliSandip commented Apr 1, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 1, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 1, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 1, 2024

kyleniemeyer commented Apr 2, 2024

cfarm6 commented Apr 2, 2024

kyleniemeyer commented Apr 2, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 2, 2024

kyleniemeyer commented Apr 2, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 2, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 2, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 2, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 2, 2024

kyleniemeyer commented Apr 2, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 2, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 1, 2024 •

edited

SotaYoshida commented Feb 2, 2024 •

edited

fb456 commented Feb 2, 2024 •

edited

fb456 commented Feb 23, 2024 •

edited

AnjaliSandip commented Apr 1, 2024 •

edited