[REVIEW]: aesop: ARC Echelle Spectroscopic Observation Pipeline

[whedon]

Submitting author: @bmorris3 (Brett Morris)
Repository: https://github.com/bmorris3/aesop
Version: v0.1
Editor: @jakevdp
Reviewer: @wtgee
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1345807

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/6737355abd6a7b0c20d22c7094576696"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/6737355abd6a7b0c20d22c7094576696/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/6737355abd6a7b0c20d22c7094576696/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/6737355abd6a7b0c20d22c7094576696)

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) 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

@wtgee, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @jakevdp know.

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨

Review checklist for @wtgee

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

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 repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v0.1)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@bmorris3) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

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 function 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

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon. I'm here to help you with some common editorial tasks. @wtgee it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper 🎉.

⭐ Important ⭐

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

2. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

--> Check article proof 📄 <--

[wtgee]

@jakevdp I was recently also listed on the author's astroplan paper. I'm looking at the conflict of interest policy and trying to decide if that applies but wanted to make you aware. Let me know if this presents an issue. Thanks!

[bmorris3]

I've read and re-read the COI terms and I think we're clear @wtgee.

[wtgee]

Hi @bmorris3 and @jakevdp. I've completed my review on this and everything looks good after the changes already made. @jakevdp I didn't hear an official response from you regarding the COI but have proceeded with the rest of the review. I do not perceive a conflict and neither does Brett.

Let me know what next steps I need to take as reviewer. Thanks!

[jakevdp]

@wtgee – let me double-check the COI

[wtgee]

Just a ping to make sure I don't need to do anything else for this. Cheers!

[jakevdp]

OK, the editorial board is in agreement that we're good to go here. Thanks everyone!

[jakevdp]

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List all of Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# Assign a GitHub user as the sole reviewer of this submission
@whedon assign @username as reviewer

# Add a GitHub user to the reviewers of this submission
@whedon add @username as reviewer

# Remove a GitHub user from the reviewers of this submission
@whedon remove @username as reviewer

# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors

# List of reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers

# Change editorial assignment
@whedon assign @username as editor

# Set the software archive DOI at the top of the issue e.g.
@whedon set 10.0000/zenodo.00000 as archive

# Open the review issue
@whedon start review

🚧 🚧 🚧 Experimental Whedon features 🚧 🚧 🚧

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf

[jakevdp]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

--> Check article proof 📄 <--

[jakevdp]

👋 @arfon, this submission is ready to be published!

[arfon]

@bmorris3 - At this point could you make an archive of the reviewed software in Zenodo/figshare/other service and update this thread with the DOI of the archive? I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

[bmorris3]

@arfon Done! http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1345807

[arfon]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.1345807 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.1345807 is the archive.

[arfon]

@wtgee - many thanks for your review here and thanks to @jakevdp for editing this submission ✨

@bmorris3 - your paper is now accepted into JOSS and your DOI is https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00854 ⚡ 🚀 💥

[whedon]

🎉🎉🎉 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](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00854/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00854)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00854">
  <img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00854/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

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: http://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/Mjk3Nzk=