[REVIEW]: FIGARO: hierarchical non-parametric inference for population studies

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @sterinaldi (Stefano Rinaldi)
Repository: https://github.com/sterinaldi/FIGARO
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-paper
Version: v1.6.7
Editor: @dfm
Reviewers: @dgerosa, @Uddiptaatwork
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.11302325

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d5e757291a0287f2fef1466c7eacdff5"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d5e757291a0287f2fef1466c7eacdff5/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d5e757291a0287f2fef1466c7eacdff5/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d5e757291a0287f2fef1466c7eacdff5)

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

@dgerosa & @Uddiptaatwork, 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

📝 Checklist for @dgerosa

📝 Checklist for @Uddiptaatwork

[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=0.05 s (1238.1 files/s, 154076.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          21            626           1525           3152
Markdown                         6             80              0            390
TeX                              1             10              0            179
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            675            148
reStructuredText                27            304            184             61
TOML                             1              6              0             58
INI                              1              1              0             29
YAML                             2              5              6             28
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            60           1032           2390           4045
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   998	Stefano Rinaldi
   169	sterinaldi
     6	Walter Del Pozzo
     2	Riccardo Buscicchio
     1	Vera Eris Del Favero
     1	d-sanfratello

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 959

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1093/mnras/stab3224 is OK
- 10.1093/mnrasl/slac101 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2308.12182 is OK
- 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12078-6 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stad2768 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123039 is OK
- 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11754-x is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Evidence for the evolution of black hole mass func...
- 10.2307/2291069 may be a valid DOI for title: Bayesian Density Estimation and Inference Using Mi...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python

INVALID DOIs

- None

[dfm]

@dgerosa, @Uddiptaatwork — 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#6589 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 📄 👈

[dgerosa]

Review checklist for @dgerosa

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

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 https://github.com/sterinaldi/FIGARO?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@sterinaldi) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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 functionality 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

• Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

[dgerosa]

Hi @sterinaldi, nice work. Here are my comments following the checklist above:

• The statement of need is not reported in the documentation.
• The package has several dependencies, as specified in pyproject.toml. I've installed the code in a fresh environment and confirm this works, but those dependencies should be listed in the documentation.
• Please specify if you're open to community contributions and how (e.g. open an issue / pull request on github).
• I could not find automated tests. Please provide some simple unit testing infrastructure, perhaps fitting simple distribution you know the analytic answer of.
• The documentation could be improved with plots instead of just instructions. I think this will make the package more attractive.
• Following up on this, I would actually embed the notebook introductive_guide.ipynb into a readthedocs page (this task can be automated with Sphinx) so that a casual user can see what the code is like without cloning the full repository, running the code, etc.
• The paper does not describe how this software compares with other software that tackles the same problem. There is a large industry of population fits in gravitational-wave astronomy, which should be mentioned/discussed/cited.
• The paper could be expanded with a tiny bit more details on the maths behind Dirichlet Processes.
• To ensure the documentation stays up to date with the code, I suggest setting up a github action.

[dgerosa]

I also have a comment/question for @dfm, which is about the scope of JOSS. The authors already published a paper in the scientific literature that presents their FIGARO code:

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, Volume 517, Issue 1, November 2022, Pages L5–L10, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slac101

This JOSS paper also presents the code and their other paper provides more details. Should there be a JOSS paper for this code? Should this submission be considered a duplicate?

[dfm]

@dgerosa — Thanks for checking in! I normally try to check this before the review starts, but sometimes things slip through. When submitting, @sterinaldi commented "This code and documentation has not been submitted, nor we are planning to submit it, to another peer-reviewed journal.", but I agree that there does seem to be significant overlap with that MNRAS paper.

Our policy on co-publication is described here. The idea is that it is ok to publish a JOSS paper when the methods or applications have been published elsewhere, but it's not ok to co-publish primarily about the software in multiple venues.

@sterinaldi — Perhaps you could provide your perspective on the relationship between this submission and the previous publication. Thanks!

[sterinaldi]

Hi @dfm – It is indeed true that we already presented a part of FIGARO in Rinaldi & Del Pozzo (2022) [RDP, hereafter] as mentioned by @dgerosa. From my perspective, however, it satisfies JOSS policy on co-publication for the following reasons:

• The paper from 2022 details mostly the mathematical derivation of the probability distributions the code is designed to sample from (Section 2; please note that these distributions are not derived for the first time in RDP), and not the specific implementation of the code. We briefly sketch the algorithm in the numbered list at the end of the same section. The paper itself then mostly focus on a specific application (the reconstruction of a probability density during an MCMC run using a DPGMM) and demonstrates its robustness, but the code itself is not primarily designed to perform this specific task. For this reason, I considered RDP a science application of FIGARO, and I mentioned it as such in the Publications section of the JOSS paper;
• Most importantly, the implementation of the hierarchical model (H)DPGMM, which from my point of view is the main feature of the FIGARO code, is not included nor mentioned in RDP. In my opinion, the implementation of this specific hierarchical population inference reflects a substantial scientific effort.

I hope this answers your questions, but I'm happy to comment more on this if you feel that it's needed!

[Uddiptaatwork]

Review checklist for @Uddiptaatwork

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

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 https://github.com/sterinaldi/FIGARO?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@sterinaldi) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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 functionality 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

• Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

[dfm]

@sterinaldi — Thanks for your response above and I'm so sorry about my delayed reply. This does sound to me like this submission is sufficiently different from the MNRAS publication to be consistent with the JOSS requirements. With this in mind, I think we should continue with the review. Thanks again to @dgerosa for checking in on this point!

[sterinaldi]

@dfm – Thanks! I'll address the comments by @dgerosa in the next few days.

[sterinaldi]

Hi @dgerosa, sorry for my late reply. Thanks for your review, below you find my reply and changes:

• I added the statement of need in the home page of the documentation;
• Dependencies are now listed in the Installation page of the documentation;
• The repository now contains a CONTRIBUTING file, as well as specifying how to report bugs and issues in the home page of the documentation;
• I added two tests, one for the DPGMM reconstruction and the other for the (H)DPGMM inference: they can be found in this file. python -m unittest from the main folder of the repository runs them;
• Two notebooks are now embedded in the documentation (how to use a FIGARO reconstruction and how to include FIGARO in a python script);
• In the paper itself, I added a citation to some recent related work in the GW astronomy field (parametric and nonparametric) so that a casual reader can have a look at what's going on;
• Concerning the mathematical details of the Dirichlet process, I added a couple of references where the details are given, both about the DP and the DPGMM. I feel that adding more details in that direction would make the paper too long with respect to the JOSS requirements (it was already almost hitting the 1000 words limit);
• The documentation is managed via readthedocs, and their workflow already updates the docs at every push.

I hope this addresses your comments!

[dgerosa]

Thanks @sterinaldi. Green light from me.

[dfm]

Thanks @dgerosa!

@Uddiptaatwork — A reminder to keep this on your radar. Please revisit your review ASAP!

[Uddiptaatwork]

Dear @sterinaldi @dfm apologies for the delay, we experienced a disruptive few weeks at the institute due to ongoing geopolitical issues.
I have just finished reviewing the paper draft and code documentation also keeping in mind the points raised by @dgerosa in this context.
I am currently running tests and reviewing installation specifics on MacOS(intel) and Linux and will confirm very shortly on the status.

[Uddiptaatwork]

• Installation was seamless both from source and PyPI in Linux(deb) and MacOS(intel).
• The tests passed with 3 warnings however:
  

All the warnings are however DeprecationWarnings and can be ignored for the time being. However, specific version updates to environment modules can cause future errors in executing certain parts of the code.
So, this is just a request to the authors to look into this just to ensure future compatibility.

In any case, I recommend this article for publication and congratulate the authors for a great piece of work.

[sterinaldi]

Hi @Uddiptaatwork, thanks!

Concerning the warnings, I'm not really sure about what's going on there, to be honest. I was aware of these warnings (MacOS, M1), but they are relative to a documentation line (the first two, the fact that I wrote \int in the documentation causes this warning) and a plot label (the math environment space in LaTeX). The code runs smoothly without warnings outside testing, so my best guess for this is something related to the testing suite.
I'll put it on my to do list for future investigation anyway.

Edit: I just checked, it's an issue with backslashes. I simply converted individual backslashes to double backslashes (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52335970/how-to-fix-syntaxwarning-invalid-escape-sequence-in-python).

[Uddiptaatwork]

Hi @Uddiptaatwork, thanks!

Concerning the warnings, I'm not really sure about what's going on there, to be honest. I was aware of these warnings (MacOS, M1), but they are relative to a documentation line (the first two, the fact that I wrote \int in the documentation causes this warning) and a plot label (the math environment space in LaTeX). The code runs smoothly without warnings outside testing, so my best guess for this is something related to the testing suite. I'll put it on my to do list for future investigation anyway.

Edit: I just checked, it's an issue with backslashes. I simply converted individual backslashes to double backslashes (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52335970/how-to-fix-syntaxwarning-invalid-escape-sequence-in-python).

Perfect, thanks for looking into this!
@dfm I confirm my recommendation to publish this article.

[dfm]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1093/mnras/stab3224 is OK
- 10.1093/mnrasl/slac101 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/202348161 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2308.12182 is OK
- 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12078-6 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stad2768 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123039 is OK
- 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11754-x is OK
- 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476550 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1201.0490 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-6382/ac0b54 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/acb5ed is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stad2215 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevX.14.021005 is OK
- 10.1007/978-0-387-30164-8_219 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[dfm]

@dgerosa, @Uddiptaatwork — Thanks for your thorough and constructive reviews!!

@sterinaldi — I've opened a small PR with some minor edits to the manuscript, please take a look and merge or let me know what you think.

Once you've done that:

1. Take one last read through the manuscript to make sure that you're happy with it (it's harder to make changes later!), especially the author names and affiliations. I've taken a pass and it looks good to me!
2. Increment the version number of the software and report that version number back here.
3. Create an archived release of that version of the software (using Zenodo or something similar). Please make sure that the metadata (title and author list) exactly match the paper. Then report the DOI of the release back to this thread.

[sterinaldi]

Hi @dfm – I merged your PR. The updated version number of the code is v1.6.7 and the DOI is 10.5281/zenodo.11302325

[dfm]

@editorialbot set v1.6.7 as version

[editorialbot]

Done! version is now v1.6.7

[dfm]

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.11302325 as archive

[editorialbot]

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.11302325

[dfm]

@editorialbot check references

[dfm]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1093/mnras/stab3224 is OK
- 10.1093/mnrasl/slac101 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/202348161 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2308.12182 is OK
- 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12078-6 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stad2768 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123039 is OK
- 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11754-x is OK
- 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476550 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1201.0490 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-6382/ac0b54 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/acb5ed is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stad2215 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevX.14.021005 is OK
- 10.1007/978-0-387-30164-8_219 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[dfm]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1093/mnras/stab3224 is OK
- 10.1093/mnrasl/slac101 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/202348161 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2308.12182 is OK
- 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12078-6 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stad2768 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123039 is OK
- 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11754-x is OK
- 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476550 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1201.0490 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-6382/ac0b54 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/acb5ed is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stad2215 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevX.14.021005 is OK
- 10.1007/978-0-387-30164-8_219 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👋 @openjournals/aass-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#5388, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[dfm]

@editorialbot accept

[editorialbot]

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Rinaldi
  given-names: Stefano
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5799-4155"
- family-names: Del Pozzo
  given-names: Walter
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3978-2030"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.11302325
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Rinaldi
    given-names: Stefano
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5799-4155"
  - family-names: Del Pozzo
    given-names: Walter
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3978-2030"
  date-published: 2024-05-25
  doi: 10.21105/joss.06589
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 97
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 6589
  title: "FIGARO: hierarchical non-parametric inference for population
    studies"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06589"
  volume: 9
title: "FIGARO: hierarchical non-parametric inference for population
  studies"

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

[editorialbot]

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

[editorialbot]

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.06589 joss-papers#5389
1. Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06589
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

[dfm]

@dgerosa, @Uddiptaatwork — Many thanks for your reviews here! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you!!

@sterinaldi — Your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS! ⚡🚀💥

[editorialbot]

🎉🎉🎉 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](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06589/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06589)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06589">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06589/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06589/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06589

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The 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: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss