[PRE REVIEW]: Reggae: A Parametric Tuner for PBJam, and a Visualization Tool for Red Giant Oscillation Spectra

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @darthoctopus (Joel Ong J. M.)
Repository: https://github.com/darthoctopus/reggae
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss
Version: git
Editor: @dfm
Reviewers: @sybreton, @sblunt
Managing EiC: Dan Foreman-Mackey

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e6adb7a3b7cabe398f6c23297da1d3b3"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e6adb7a3b7cabe398f6c23297da1d3b3/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e6adb7a3b7cabe398f6c23297da1d3b3/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e6adb7a3b7cabe398f6c23297da1d3b3)

Author instructions

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

@darthoctopus 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]

Checking the BibTeX entries failed with the following error:

No paper file path

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.05 s (442.1 files/s, 81957.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          17            850            731           1772
TeX                              1             16              0            253
Markdown                         2             25              0             61
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            20            891            731           2086
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a valid open source license

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[editorialbot]

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf. Paper file not found.

[dfm]

@darthoctopus — Thanks for your submission! All the suitable JOSS editors are currently working at capacity so I'm going to "waitlist" this review until an editor with the relevant expertise is available to take it on. Thanks for your patience!

In the meantime, I believe that the errors raised here are happening because the paper must be called paper.md as described in the docs. Please rename the file and try commenting @editorialbot generate pdf in this thread.

[darthoctopus]

Oops, I'd meant to rename the markdown file before submission but somehow overlooked that. I have now done so.

@editorialbot generate pdf

As far as I can see, of the reviewers on the big list, only Dan Hey has indicated expertise with asteroseismology. As such, I think we will indicate a preference for him to review.

[dfm]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf. Problem with affiliations for J. Ong, perhaps the affiliations index need quoting?.

[darthoctopus]

hmm, very confused by this bc it builds just fine on my local machine. Third time's the charm?

[darthoctopus]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

pySYD: Automated measurements of global asteroseismic parameters
Submitting author: @ashleychontos
Handling editor: @mbobra (Active)
Reviewers: @danhey, @benjaminpope
Similarity score: 0.8108

QuasinormalModes.jl: A Julia package for computing discrete eigenvalues of second order ODEs
Submitting author: @lucass-carneiro
Handling editor: @pdebuyl (Active)
Reviewers: @JamieBamber, @cescalara
Similarity score: 0.8102

Virgo: A Versatile Spectrometer for Radio Astronomy
Submitting author: @0xCoto
Handling editor: @xuanxu (Active)
Reviewers: @astrom-tom, @ygrange
Similarity score: 0.8102

Model dispersion with PRISM; an alternative to MCMC for rapid analysis of models
Submitting author: @1313e
Handling editor: @arokem (Retired)
Reviewers: @fonnesbeck
Similarity score: 0.8094

Reel1.0 - A visualization tool for evaluating powder diffraction refinements
Submitting author: @fgjorup
Handling editor: @rkurchin (Active)
Reviewers: @cmbiwer, @mikapfl
Similarity score: 0.8090

⚠️ 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.

[dfm]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/abcd39 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/202346086 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7215695 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/acbf2f is OK
- 10.1007/s10509-009-0216-2 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9ffb is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[warrickball]

Hi @darthoctopus, sorry about the long wait. I'll pick this up now and start looking for reviewers. If there's anyone you'd like to suggest that don't constitute a conflict of interest, do let me know!

[warrickball]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @warrickball is now the editor

[warrickball]

I just want to flag for @dfm that I'm technically a conflict of interest myself. @darthoctopus and I have both been authors on some consortium papers organised by the TESS Asteroseismic Science Consortium (TASC) but we've also both contributed to PBjam, on which Reggae depends. My contributions to PBjam have been very limited, though.

Regarding the code, Reggae doesn't clearly come across clearly as a tool intended for other researchers using PBjam. You may want to have a look at the JOSS review criteria in anticipation. For example, I couldn't easily find installation instructions or a worked example. The GUI screenshot in the README.md is fine but it'd be nice to know how to reach that point.

[darthoctopus]

@warrickball thanks for the heads up. Logistically, will we be permitted to push changes to the main branch for consideration during the review, or will we have to wait for each report before doing so?

[warrickball]

You can certainly iterate during review and I think most authors do respond to the review by making changes to the repository. The JOSS review process is intended to be very iterative and reviewers may comment on one aspect of the code at a time, so that you're working on one part (e.g. documentation) while they review another (e.g. testing).

[warrickball]

@editorialbot add @sybreton as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@sybreton added to the reviewers list!

[warrickball]

@editorialbot add @sblunt as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@sblunt added to the reviewers list!

[warrickball]

On closer inspection, my conflict of interest with the co-authors on this submission are too much to waive, so I'm going to hand this over to @dfm to edit.

[warrickball]

@editorialbot assign @dfm as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @dfm is now the editor

[dfm]

@editorialbot start review

Thanks @warrickball for getting this rolling!
Thanks @sybreton and @sblunt for agreeing to review!

The main review will happen in a new thread and I'll meet you over there shortly.

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6588.