[REVIEW]: EXP: a Python/C++ package for basis function expansion methods in galactic dynamics

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @michael-petersen (Michael Petersen)
Repository: https://github.com/EXP-code/EXP
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v7.7.99
Editor: @dfm
Reviewers: @schuhmaj
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/869a8ce345b8756b1235b1b32986794f"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/869a8ce345b8756b1235b1b32986794f/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/869a8ce345b8756b1235b1b32986794f/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/869a8ce345b8756b1235b1b32986794f)

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

@schuhmaj, 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 @dfm 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

@schuhmaj, please create your checklist typing: @editorialbot generate my checklist

[editorialbot]

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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.51 s (1357.7 files/s, 440942.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C++                            346          28410          15821         103143
C/C++ Header                   259           9115           9838          24907
CUDA                            15           2467           1802           8525
Fortran 77                       3             22           1646           4173
C                               21            736           1526           4073
CSS                              4            466            196           2964
XML                              3              5              7           1593
CMake                           19            308            200           1319
TeX                              2             95             16            810
HTML                             4             53             16            730
Markdown                         9            187              0            723
Python                           8            204            252            434
YAML                             3             21             58            120
Bourne Shell                     1              3              0             10
C Shell                          1              6              4              7
JSON                             1              0              0              7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           699          42098          31382         153538
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

  4667	Martin D. Weinberg
   937	weinberg
   223	mdw
    66	Martin Weinberg
    41	michael-petersen
    28	michael_petersen
    20	jhchoi
    16	Adrian Price-Whelan
    11	Robert Blackwell
    10	r-j-arnold
     2	Becky Arnold
     1	(no author)
     1	Martin Weinberg [[email protected]]
     1	Michael
     1	arora125

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1504

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU General Public License v3.0 (Check here for OSI approval)

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201832865 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00388 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stad2591 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa3997 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stab3639 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stad485 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1086/300669 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 is OK
- 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0b44 is OK
- 10.1086/168845 is OK
- 10.1086/171025 is OK
- 10.1086/304888 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Hierarchical data format version 5
- No DOI given, and none found for title: pybind11 – Seamless operability between C++11 and ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Analysis of time series structure: SSA and related...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Eigen v3
- No DOI given, and none found for title: CUDA, release: 10.2.89
- No DOI given, and none found for title: MPI: A Message-Passing Interface Standard Version ...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[dfm]

@schuhmaj — This is the review thread for the paper. All of our correspondence will happen here from now on. Thanks again for agreeing to participate!

👉 Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above, and generate your checklists by commenting @editorialbot generate my checklist on this issue ASAP. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also 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#7302 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. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks but please try to make a start ahead of this as JOSS reviews are by their nature iterative and any early feedback you may be able to provide to the author will be very helpful in meeting this schedule. Please get your review started as soon as possible!

[editorialbot]

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