[REVIEW]: ThermoParser: Streamlined Analysis of the Thermoelectric Properties #6340

editorialbot · 2024-02-09T12:02:41Z

Submitting author: @kbspooner (Kieran B. Spooner)
Repository: https://github.com/SMTG-Bham/ThermoParser
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-paper
Version: v3.1.4
Editor: @mbarzegary
Reviewers: @enricgrau, @fnattino, @espottesmith
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10987923

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d39912754717d38988d16e0e001c4641"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d39912754717d38988d16e0e001c4641/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d39912754717d38988d16e0e001c4641/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d39912754717d38988d16e0e001c4641)

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

@enricgrau, 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 @mbarzegary 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 @enricgrau

📝 Checklist for @fnattino

📝 Checklist for @espottesmith

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

editorialbot · 2024-02-09T12:02:44Z

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 · 2024-02-09T12:03:00Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.98 s (252.7 files/s, 221994.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAML                            10           2758             64          86098
JSON                             2              0              0          45796
HTML                            78           3655            231          26107
JavaScript                      18           4504           4502          16705
Python                          64           2762           3765           9291
SVG                              2              0              0           5342
CSS                              8            475             73           1785
reStructuredText                56            597            644           1306
TeX                              1             28              1            276
Markdown                         3             37              0            129
Bourne Shell                     3              7              0             31
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           247          14835           9288         192901
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot · 2024-02-09T12:03:02Z

Wordcount for paper.md is 1439

mbarzegary · 2024-02-09T12:03:24Z

@editorialbot add @fnattino as reviewer

editorialbot · 2024-02-09T12:03:26Z

@fnattino added to the reviewers list!

editorialbot · 2024-02-09T12:03:36Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.180301 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.88.144301 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.104111 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.91.094306 is OK
- 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2015.07.021 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2014.02.015 is OK
- 10.1039/d0ta00690d is OK
- 10.1039/d0ta02247k is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1016/j.commatsci.2012.10.028 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2006.03.007 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00717 is OK
- 10.1088/0953-8984/26/22/225402 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-021-22440-5 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1016/j.commatsci.2021.111152 may be a valid DOI for title: TOSSPB: Thermoelectric Optimization Based on Scattering-Dependent Single-Parabolic Band Model
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2010.08.027 may be a valid DOI for title: EPW: A Program for Calculating the Electron–Phonon Coupling Using Maximally Localized Wannier Functions
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2018.05.010 may be a valid DOI for title: BoltzTraP2, a Program for Interpolating Band Structures and Calculating Semi-Classical Transport Coefficients
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2021.107970 may be a valid DOI for title: Perturbo: A Software Package for ab Initio Electron–Phonon Interactions, Charge Transport and Ultrafast Dynamics
- 10.1038/s41524-020-0316-7 may be a valid DOI for title: EPIC STAR: a Reliable and Efficient Approach for Phonon-and Impurity-Limited Charge Transport Calculations
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2023.108670 may be a valid DOI for title: ElecTra Code: Full-Band Electronic Transport Properties of Materials
- 10.1002/adts.201800184 may be a valid DOI for title: The Hiphive Package for the Extraction of High-Order Force Constants by Machine Learning

INVALID DOIs

- None

mbarzegary · 2024-02-09T12:03:44Z

@editorialbot add @espottesmith as reviewer

editorialbot · 2024-02-09T12:03:47Z

@espottesmith added to the reviewers list!

editorialbot · 2024-02-09T12:04:09Z

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

mbarzegary · 2024-02-09T12:07:17Z

👋🏼 @enricgrau, @fnattino, @espottesmith this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

As a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering

@editorialbot generate my checklist

as the top of a new comment in this thread.

These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6340 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please feel free to ping me (@mbarzegary) if you have any questions/concerns.

fnattino · 2024-02-09T12:09:50Z

Review checklist for @fnattino

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/SMTG-Bham/ThermoParser?
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 (@kbspooner) 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?

mbarzegary · 2024-02-09T12:10:39Z

@kbspooner this is where the review takes place. Please keep an eye out for comments here from the reviewers, as well as any issues opened by them on your software repository. I recommend you aim to respond to these as soon as possible, and you can address them straight away as they come in if you like, to ensure we do not loose track of the reviewers.

To start with, can you please fix the missing DOIs issue reported by the editorial bot?

enricgrau · 2024-02-12T09:41:27Z

Review checklist for @enricgrau

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/SMTG-Bham/ThermoParser?
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 (@kbspooner) 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?

kbspooner · 2024-02-12T14:37:09Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-02-12T14:38:30Z

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

espottesmith · 2024-02-12T15:54:24Z

Review checklist for @espottesmith

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/SMTG-Bham/ThermoParser?
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 (@kbspooner) 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?

kbspooner · 2024-02-12T15:59:38Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-02-12T16:00:53Z

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

kbspooner · 2024-02-12T16:02:07Z

@editorialbot commands

editorialbot · 2024-02-12T16:02:10Z

Hello @kbspooner, here are the things you can ask me to do:


# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

kbspooner · 2024-02-12T16:02:44Z

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot · 2024-02-12T16:02:55Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.180301 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.88.144301 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.104111 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.91.094306 is OK
- 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2015.07.021 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2014.02.015 is OK
- 10.1039/d0ta00690d is OK
- 10.1039/d0ta02247k is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1016/j.commatsci.2012.10.028 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2006.03.007 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00717 is OK
- 10.1088/0953-8984/26/22/225402 is OK
- 10.1039/D3TC01003A is OK
- 10.1016/j.commatsci.2021.111152 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2010.08.027 is OK
- 10.1002/aenm.201800246 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2018.05.010 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2021.107970 is OK
- 10.1038/s41524-020-0316-7 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2023.108670 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-021-22440-5 is OK
- 10.1002/adts.201800184 is OK
- 10.1039/D2TA04160J is OK
- 10.1021/acs.chemmater.1c02164 is OK
- 10.1039/D1MH00764E is OK
- 10.1016/j.matt.2023.10.022 is OK
- 10.1063/5.0170552 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

kbspooner · 2024-02-12T16:03:56Z

I believe thats all the references done (including ones that editorialbot missed).

kbspooner · 2024-02-12T16:06:20Z

phono3py-power-tools doesn't have a doi but a url is included.

kbspooner · 2024-04-17T16:02:50Z

Thanks!
I've merged your PR, checked the paper, archived on Zenodo with the appropriate metadata.
About the missing DOI in the references, there is none for that software, do I need to do something about that?

Version: 3.1.4
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10987923

mbarzegary · 2024-04-19T14:25:04Z

@kbspooner I see that the mentioned software doesn't have any other mean of citation or a even a version number unfortunately. Moreover, it seems that you needed to cite it since you wanted to compare you code with it, so we cannot mark it as an unnecessary citation and replace it with a link. As a result, I think it's fine to proceed with how it is now.

mbarzegary · 2024-04-22T08:55:51Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-04-22T08:57:15Z

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

mbarzegary · 2024-04-22T08:58:51Z

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.10987923 as archive

editorialbot · 2024-04-22T08:58:53Z

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.10987923

mbarzegary · 2024-04-22T09:00:50Z

@editorialbot set v3.1.4 as version

editorialbot · 2024-04-22T09:00:52Z

Done! version is now v3.1.4

mbarzegary · 2024-04-22T09:36:39Z

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot · 2024-04-22T09:37:51Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.180301 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.88.144301 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.104111 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.91.094306 is OK
- 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2015.07.021 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2014.02.015 is OK
- 10.1039/d0ta00690d is OK
- 10.1039/d0ta02247k is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1016/j.commatsci.2012.10.028 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2006.03.007 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00717 is OK
- 10.1088/0953-8984/26/22/225402 is OK
- 10.1039/D3TC01003A is OK
- 10.1016/j.commatsci.2021.111152 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2010.08.027 is OK
- 10.1002/aenm.201800246 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2018.05.010 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2021.107970 is OK
- 10.1038/s41524-020-0316-7 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2023.108670 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-021-22440-5 is OK
- 10.1002/adts.201800184 is OK
- 10.1039/D2TA04160J is OK
- 10.1021/acs.chemmater.1c02164 is OK
- 10.1039/D1MH00764E is OK
- 10.1016/j.matt.2023.10.022 is OK
- 10.1063/5.0170552 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.10.102 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Phono3py-Power-Tools

INVALID DOIs

- None

mbarzegary · 2024-04-22T09:40:33Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-04-22T09:40:35Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-04-22T09:41:10Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.180301 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.88.144301 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.104111 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.91.094306 is OK
- 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2015.07.021 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2014.02.015 is OK
- 10.1039/d0ta00690d is OK
- 10.1039/d0ta02247k is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1016/j.commatsci.2012.10.028 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2006.03.007 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00717 is OK
- 10.1088/0953-8984/26/22/225402 is OK
- 10.1039/D3TC01003A is OK
- 10.1016/j.commatsci.2021.111152 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2010.08.027 is OK
- 10.1002/aenm.201800246 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2018.05.010 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2021.107970 is OK
- 10.1038/s41524-020-0316-7 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2023.108670 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-021-22440-5 is OK
- 10.1002/adts.201800184 is OK
- 10.1039/D2TA04160J is OK
- 10.1021/acs.chemmater.1c02164 is OK
- 10.1039/D1MH00764E is OK
- 10.1016/j.matt.2023.10.022 is OK
- 10.1063/5.0170552 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.10.102 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Phono3py-Power-Tools

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-04-22T09:42:25Z

👋 @openjournals/bcm-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#5261, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-05-01T20:11:12Z

@kbspooner as AEiC for JOSS I will now help to process this submission for acceptance in JOSS. I have checked this review, your repository, the archive link, and the paper. Most seems in order, I'll just ask one reviewer for clarification before we move on.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-05-01T20:12:08Z

@enricgrau thanks for your help reviewing this submission. Could you check if you meant to leave the Functionality box unticked? If so can you clarify why it is not ticked? If not, can you please tick it at this point? Thanks!

scanlond · 2024-05-17T20:45:57Z

@enricgrau can you please check on the Functionality box, as we would very much like to get this sorted as soon as possible?

mbarzegary · 2024-05-17T22:04:10Z

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman on march 28, @enricgrau told me that he is satisfied with the revised paper/code (message below), so the check box is simply missed to tick I would say.

@mbarzegary The author has responded to all my concerns. I can now recommend for publication.

enricgrau · 2024-05-22T23:05:00Z

Im really sorry @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman @kbspoone. Box is checked now.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-05-25T06:50:55Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2024-05-25T06:50:57Z

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

editorialbot · 2024-05-25T06:57:36Z

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: Spooner
  given-names: Kieran B.
- family-names: Einhorn
  given-names: Maud
- family-names: Davies
  given-names: Daniel W.
- family-names: Scanlon
  given-names: David O.
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10987923
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Spooner
    given-names: Kieran B.
  - family-names: Einhorn
    given-names: Maud
  - family-names: Davies
    given-names: Daniel W.
  - family-names: Scanlon
    given-names: David O.
  date-published: 2024-05-25
  doi: 10.21105/joss.06340
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 97
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 6340
  title: "ThermoParser: Streamlined Analysis of Thermoelectric
    Properties"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06340"
  volume: 9
title: "ThermoParser: Streamlined Analysis of Thermoelectric Properties"

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 · 2024-05-25T06:57:39Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2024-05-25T06:57:40Z

🚨🚨🚨 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.06340 joss-papers#5384
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06340
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2024-05-25T17:34:44Z

@kbspooner congratulations on this JOSS publication!!!!!

@mbarzegary thanks for editing!

And a special thank you to the reviewers: @enricgrau, @fnattino, @espottesmith !!!

editorialbot · 2024-05-25T17:34:45Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.06340/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06340)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06340">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06340/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06340/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06340

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 Python review TeX Track: 2 (BCM) Biomedical Engineering, Biosciences, Chemistry, and Materials labels Feb 9, 2024

editorialbot assigned mbarzegary Feb 9, 2024

editorialbot mentioned this issue Feb 9, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: ThermoParser: Streamlined Analysis of the Thermoelectric Properties #6218

Closed

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Apr 22, 2024

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels May 25, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman closed this as completed May 25, 2024

[REVIEW]: ThermoParser: Streamlined Analysis of the Thermoelectric Properties #6340

[REVIEW]: ThermoParser: Streamlined Analysis of the Thermoelectric Properties #6340

Comments

editorialbot commented Feb 9, 2024 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Feb 9, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 9, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 9, 2024

mbarzegary commented Feb 9, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 9, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 9, 2024

mbarzegary commented Feb 9, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 9, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 9, 2024

mbarzegary commented Feb 9, 2024

fnattino commented Feb 9, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @fnattino

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

mbarzegary commented Feb 9, 2024

enricgrau commented Feb 12, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @enricgrau

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

kbspooner commented Feb 12, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 12, 2024

espottesmith commented Feb 12, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @espottesmith

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

kbspooner commented Feb 12, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 12, 2024

kbspooner commented Feb 12, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 12, 2024

kbspooner commented Feb 12, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 12, 2024

kbspooner commented Feb 12, 2024

kbspooner commented Feb 12, 2024

kbspooner commented Apr 17, 2024

mbarzegary commented Apr 19, 2024

mbarzegary commented Apr 22, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 22, 2024

mbarzegary commented Apr 22, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 22, 2024

mbarzegary commented Apr 22, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 22, 2024

mbarzegary commented Apr 22, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 22, 2024

mbarzegary commented Apr 22, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 22, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 22, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 22, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented May 1, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented May 1, 2024

scanlond commented May 17, 2024

mbarzegary commented May 17, 2024

enricgrau commented May 22, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented May 25, 2024

editorialbot commented May 25, 2024

editorialbot commented May 25, 2024

editorialbot commented May 25, 2024

editorialbot commented May 25, 2024

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented May 25, 2024

editorialbot commented May 25, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

fnattino commented Feb 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

enricgrau commented Feb 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading

espottesmith commented Feb 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading