[PRE REVIEW]: NOMAD CAMELS: Configurable Application for Measurements, Experiments and Laboratory Systems

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @lapmk (Michael Krieger)
Repository: https://github.com/FAU-LAP/NOMAD-CAMELS
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): JOSS-paper
Version: v0.2.3
Editor: @srmnitc
Reviewers: @NicolasCARPi, @ktahar
Managing EiC: Kyle Niemeyer

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3c9738d23ab6b6a366c795dbb9538bcd"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3c9738d23ab6b6a366c795dbb9538bcd/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3c9738d23ab6b6a366c795dbb9538bcd/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3c9738d23ab6b6a366c795dbb9538bcd)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @lapmk. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@lapmk if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, 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 1.88  T=0.21 s (628.3 files/s, 144720.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          98           4112           5126          12900
Qt                              20              0              0           3930
SVG                              7            678              5           3139
Markdown                         3             66              0            346
TeX                              1             19              0            264
YAML                             3              4             55            159
DOS Batch                        1              0              0             32
TOML                             1              4              0             25
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           134           4883           5186          20795
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1336

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.21105/joss.05388 is OK
- 10.52825/cordi.v1i.376 is OK
- 10.6028/jres.117.010 is OK
- 10.1038/467753a is OK
- 10.1080/08940886.2019.1608121 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-022-04501-x is OK
- 10.1557/mrs.2018.208 is OK
- 10.1107/S1600576714027575 is OK
- 10.1088/2515-7639/ab13bb is OK
- 10.1016/0168-9002(94)91577-6 is OK
- 10.52825/cordi.v1i.283 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

DataLad: distributed system for joint management of code, data, and their relationship
Submitting author: @yarikoptic
Handling editor: @arokem (Retired)
Reviewers: @szorowi1, @jkanche
Similarity score: 0.8060

ELDAM: A Python software for Life Cycle Inventory data management
Submitting author: @GustaveCoste
Handling editor: @sjpfenninger (Retired)
Reviewers: @konstantinstadler, @romainsacchi
Similarity score: 0.8054

DARE Platform: a Developer-Friendly and Self-Optimising Workflows-as-a-Service Framework for e-Science on the Cloud
Submitting author: @iaklampanos
Handling editor: @danielskatz (Active)
Reviewers: @rafaelfsilva, @Himscipy
Similarity score: 0.8045

Science Capsule - Capturing the Data Life Cycle
Submitting author: @dghoshal-lbl
Handling editor: @pibion (Retired)
Reviewers: @colbrydi, @gflofst, @atrisovic
Similarity score: 0.8038

KADE: A desktop application for Q methodology
Submitting author: @shawnbanasick
Handling editor: @alexhanna (Retired)
Reviewers: @davekinkead
Similarity score: 0.8019

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[kyleniemeyer]

Hello @lapmk, thanks for your submission to JOSS. We'll use this pre-review issue to assign an editor and find reviewers; unfortunately, we don't have any editors available to handle your submission right now, so I need to put this on our waitlist until someone can edit it.

In the meantime, any reviewer recommendations you can make would be welcome.

[lapmk]

Hello @kyleniemeyer, thanks for your message. Although we understand your situation, we hope that an editor can soon be assigned and that the review process can be started. Following your recommendation, we would like to suggest the following reviewers:

• ktahar
• arosen93
• sgbaird
• SimonStier
• NicolasCARPi

[lapmk]

Hello @kyleniemeyer, we've submitted this manuscript two months ago on Dec 8, 2023. We would really appreciate rapid publication. Please could you make sure that the review procedure can start. For reviewer suggestions, please see my previous comment. If we can do anything to speed up the process, please let us know. Thank you.

[kyleniemeyer]

@lapmk I appreciate your desire for this to move forward, but please understand that JOSS relies on all-volunteer services, and we have a waitlist because all the editors in this track have full editing loads—submissions are assigned as people become available. Fortunately, we are in the process of onboarding additional editors.

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot invite @srmnitc as editor

Hi @srmnitc, do you have the bandwidth to take another submission? This looks like it might be within your wheelhouse.

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[lapmk]

Thank you very much @kyleniemeyer. Your efforts and the work of the volunteer editors of JOSS are greatly appreciated; we understand the heavy workload. Thanks for inviting @srmnitc to be editor for our manuscript. This seems indeed like a perfect fit, as he works on scientific software within MatWerk, the "neighboring" NFDI consortium to FAIRmat, in which we are developing NOMAD CAMELS presented here in our manuscript. We look forward to the review and editing process.

[srmnitc]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @srmnitc is now the editor

[kyleniemeyer]

Thanks @srmnitc!

[srmnitc]

Hi @lapmk, I will be the handling editor for this submission. The next step would be to find some reviewers for the submission. Meanwhile, feel free to ask me any questions here.

[lapmk]

Hi @srmnitc, thank you so much for taking care of our submission. You've probably seen that I've suggested some reviewers earlier in this thread that might be a good fit for the topic. I hope this is helpful for you.

[srmnitc]

👋 @Andrew-S-Rosen, @NicolasCARPi, would any of you have time and be willing to review this submission for JOSS? As you might know, we carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines. Thanks for your time!

[Andrew-S-Rosen]

Sorry, won't be able to take this on.

[srmnitc]

Hi @srmnitc, thank you so much for taking care of our submission. You've probably seen that I've suggested some reviewers earlier in this thread that might be a good fit for the topic. I hope this is helpful for you.

Yes, thank you. I have also reached out to a couple of people by email.

[NicolasCARPi]

Hello @srmnitc , I'll be happy to review this submission.

[srmnitc]

@editorialbot add @NicolasCARPi as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@NicolasCARPi added to the reviewers list!

[NicolasCARPi]

@whedon start review

[editorialbot]

My name is now @editorialbot

[NicolasCARPi]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

I'm sorry @NicolasCARPi, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do.

[lapmk]

@editorialbot generate preprint

[editorialbot]

📄 Preprint file created: Find it here in the Artifacts list 📄

[NicolasCARPi]

@editorialbot generate my checklist

[editorialbot]

Checklists can only be created once the review has started in the review issue

[NicolasCARPi]

@srmnitc Can you help out with getting started with the review please? Seems I cannot create the review issue.

[kyleniemeyer]

@NicolasCARPi yes, please let @srmnitc, the editor, handle the creation of the review issue. We need at least two reviewers assigned before we can move forward with that. In the meantime, you can of course begin evaluating the submission.

[srmnitc]

@NicolasCARPi Yes, we have to wait for two reviewers to start the review. I have reached out to others through email. I am waiting for replies. @kyleniemeyer Thanks for clarifying. I hope we can start the review in the next few days.

[srmnitc]

Unfortunately the reviewers I reached out to by email are busy, so we will keep trying to find one other reviewer. Thanks for your patience.

[srmnitc]

👋 @ktahar, @sgbaird, would any of you have time and be willing to review this submission for JOSS? As you might know, we carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines. Thanks for your time!

[ktahar]

Hi @srmnitc, I can do this but I have one favor to ask.
I have been assigned as a reviewer of this paper (pySLM2): #6315 ,
however, I haven't actually started the review (as I didn't have enough time in this week).
I think I can review only one paper in a short period of time.
Can you possibly switch me from pySLM2 to this one? (remove me from pySLM2 and then assign to this paper?)
It seems pySLM2 has enough number of reviewers, and this paper looks better fit to my expertise.

[srmnitc]

@ktahar Thanks, I will ask the EiC if this is possible.

[srmnitc]

Hi @srmnitc, I can do this but I have one favor to ask. I have been assigned as a reviewer of this paper (pySLM2): #6315 , however, I haven't actually started the review (as I didn't have enough time in this week). I think I can review only one paper in a short period of time. Can you possibly switch me from pySLM2 to this one? (remove me from pySLM2 and then assign to this paper?) It seems pySLM2 has enough number of reviewers, and this paper looks better fit to my expertise.

@kyleniemeyer would we be able to do this? Thanks!

[kyleniemeyer]

Yes, this is possible.

[srmnitc]

Perfect then, @ktahar I'll assign you as reviewer, and get this started, and talk to the editor over at the other issue to unassign you.
Thanks again.

[srmnitc]

@editorialbot assign @ktahar as reviewer

[editorialbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

[srmnitc]

@editorialbot add @ktahar as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@ktahar added to the reviewers list!

[srmnitc]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6371.