[PRE REVIEW]: AtomNeb: Atomic Data for Ionized Nebulae #799
Comments
|
Hello human, I'm @whedon. I'm here to help you with some common editorial tasks. For a list of things I can do to help you, just type: |
|
|
Based on your list of joss reviewers, I think that @mgalloy @scivision @mankoff would be great reviewers for IDL programs. |
|
OK, the editor is @arfon |
|
@mgalloy @scivision @mankoff - would one or more of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? |
|
I can review this. |
Great, thanks @mgalloy! I'd like to find two reviewers for this submission if possible so if you could just sit tight for another few days that would be great. Once we have a second reviewer, I'll open up the main review issue. |
|
Your list of joss reviewers also shows that @manodeep @mattpitkin @zingale @ziotom78 @benjaminrose @Cadair @nespinoza are comfortable with reviewing topic areas of astronomy and astrophysics. |
|
@arfon I corrected minor typo mistakes. Please regenerate the article PDF after assigning 2 reviewers. |
|
I'm not really an IDL person anymore, and don't have IDL to test it, so I don't think I can review |
|
Same for me, it has been years since I used IDL and no longer have a license.
In data 9 agosto 2018 9:57:12 PM Michael Zingale <notifications@github.com>
ha scritto:
… I'm not really an IDL person anymore, and don't have IDL to test it, so I
don't think I can review
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
Same situation for me - have not written/used IDL in 3+ years |
|
Same here! Dropped IDL at least 7+ years ago. Sorry! |
|
@danehkar as with your other submission, I think it might be tough to find IDL reviewers these days. Please feel free to suggest potential reviewers from places other than the list I shared earlier. |
|
It might work on GNU Data Language (GDL). As my library depends on IDL Astronomy User's library, I cannot fix any GDL-incompatibility bugs related to IDL Astronomy User's library. I am also preparing a Python version of these package (AtomNeb + proEQUIB). However, I will release them next year. Most people who work at US research institutes have IDL license on their computers. For example, @wlandsman who works on IDL Astronomy User's library, IDLAstro, might be able to test my IDL libraries (AtomNeb and proEQUIB), or @flamingbear who works on Coyote IDL Library. |
|
FYI, the team leading the development of GDL (the free IDL clone) have
worked to make it compatible with IDL Astronomy User's library, and have
verified this for the case of the FITS I/O routines. I took a quick look
at AtomNeb and it seems very likely to work under GDL since it does not
use widget or very recent IDL additions.
…On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:12 PM Ashkbiz Danehkar ***@***.***> wrote:
It might work on GNU Data Language (GDL)
<https://github.com/gnudatalanguage/gdl>. As my library depends on IDL
Astronomy User's library <https://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov/homepage.html>,
I cannot fix any GDL-incompatibility bugs related to IDL Astronomy User's
library. I am also preparing a Python version of these package (AtomNeb +
proEQUIB). However, I will release them next year. Most people who work at
US research institutes have IDL license on their computers. For example,
@wlandsman <https://github.com/wlandsman> who works on IDL Astronomy
User's library, IDLAstro <https://github.com/wlandsman/IDLAstro>, might
be able to test my IDL libraries (AtomNeb and proEQUIB), or @flamingbear
<https://github.com/flamingbear> who works on Coyote IDL Library
<https://github.com/idl-coyote/coyote>.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#799 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AG96dETvbOi6pIjUMwjq2-0P7oph48saks5uPb7zgaJpZM4U99DY>
.
|
|
@wlandsman Please also look at [PRE REVIEW]: proEQUIB. proEQUIB IDL library uses the AtomNeb APIs. There are some examples. |
|
@wlandsman if you are able to review and test this IDL library, please let @arfon know as soon as possible since he is looking for 2 reviewers for this submission in JOSS. Currently, he found one reviewer. |
|
@mdpiper would be a good IDL reviewer. I believe he has started the process to be a reviewer. |
|
Hi @mgalloy & @wlandsman, firstly, many thanks for your help/interest in these packages thus far. We've recently had two submissions from @danehkar: this one, and the proEQUIB IDL library. I'm wondering if you'd be both willing to review both of these packages? I ask as we're really struggling to find suitable reviewers for these packages. If this is something that you'd be open to then I would go ahead and start the reviews for both but there would be no expectation on our part that you complete these both simultaneously! What do you both think? |
|
I can review both of the packages. |
|
Hi Arfon,
I’m happy to help; just let me know!
mp
On Aug 16, 2018, at 4:13 AM, Arfon Smith <notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com>> wrote:
Hi @mgalloy<https://github.com/mgalloy> & @wlandsman<https://github.com/wlandsman>, firstly, many thanks for your help/interest in these packages thus far.
We've recently had two submissions from @danehkar<https://github.com/danehkar>: this one, and the proEQUIB<#798> IDL library.
I'm wondering if you'd be both willing to review both of these packages? I ask as we're really struggling to find suitable reviewers for these packages.
If this is something that you'd be open to then I would go ahead and start the reviews for both but there would be no expectation on our part that you complete these both simultaneously!
What do you both think?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#799 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFaS76XcaLakq2Y8whqWFBhR8raz-aSaks5uRUXCgaJpZM4U99DY>.
|
|
OK, @mgalloy is now a reviewer |
|
OK, @mdpiper is now a reviewer |
|
@whedon start review |
|
OK, I've started the review over in #898. Feel free to close this issue now! |
|
@mgalloy, @mdpiper - thanks so much for agreeing to review these packages! I've gone ahead and started the review for this submission and will do the same for #798. @danehkar - given you have the same reviewers for both of these packages - do you have a preference for which package @mgalloy & @mdpiper review first? |
|
@whedon generate pdf |
|
|
@whedon generate pdf |
|
|
@whedon generate pdf |
|
Submitting author: @danehkar (Ashkbiz Danehkar)
Repository: https://github.com/atomneb/AtomNeb-idl
Version: v0.0.1
Editor: @arfon
Reviewers: @mgalloy, @mdpiper
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @danehkar. The JOSS editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.
@danehkar if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission.
Editor instructions
The JOSS submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: