[PRE REVIEW]: Krang: Kerr Raytracer for Analytic Null Geodesics

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @dominic-chang (Dominic Chang)
Repository: https://github.com/dominic-chang/Krang.jl
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-paper
Version: v0.1.0
Editor: @lrnv
Reviewers: @aplavin, @alejandroc137, @ExpandingMan
Managing EiC: Dan Foreman-Mackey

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/378df5c54cd21e293b92ac692c21c0ed"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/378df5c54cd21e293b92ac692c21c0ed/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/378df5c54cd21e293b92ac692c21c0ed/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/378df5c54cd21e293b92ac692c21c0ed)

Author instructions

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

@dominic-chang 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]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1126/sciadv.aaz1310 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c96 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6674 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.043030 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9ab7 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.6471796 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- None

❌ MISSING DOIs

- 10.1117/12.3019437 may be a valid DOI for title: The Black Hole Explorer: Photon Ring Science, Dete...

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.05 s (1191.4 files/s, 171198.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                           31            711            547           3042
JSON                             2              0              0           2340
Markdown                         9             97              0            629
YAML                             6              5              9            201
CSS                              1             38             28            115
TeX                              1              0              0            109
Vuejs Component                  1              2              3             83
TOML                             4              5              0             62
TypeScript                       1              2              2             17
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            56            860            589           6598
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    54	Dominic
    37	dominic-chang
    34	Dominic Chang
     5	CompatHelper Julia
     1	Anshul Singhvi
     1	Paul Tiede

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 691

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

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

[editorialbot]

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

[dfm]

@dominic-chang — 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!

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

Comrade: Composable Modeling of Radio Emission
Submitting author: @ptiede
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @mileslucas, @cescalara
Similarity score: 0.7475

GRDzhadzha: A code for evolving relativistic matter on analytic metric backgrounds
Submitting author: @dinatraykova
Handling editor: @warrickball (Active)
Reviewers: @rashti-alireza, @ekwessel
Similarity score: 0.7310

RelativisticDynamics.jl: Relativistic Spin-Orbital Dynamics in Julia
Submitting author: @tomkimpson
Handling editor: @dfm (Active)
Reviewers: @langfzac, @tamasgal
Similarity score: 0.7266

3D Line Radiative Transfer & Synthetic Observations with Magritte
Submitting author: @FredDeCeuster
Handling editor: @xuanxu (Active)
Reviewers: @gonsie, @CFGrote
Similarity score: 0.7051

Vlasiator.jl: A Julia package for processing Vlasiator data
Submitting author: @henry2004y
Handling editor: @pdebuyl (Active)
Reviewers: @ranocha, @tkoskela
Similarity score: 0.7014

⚠️ 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.

[dominic-chang]

Submitting author: @dominic-chang (Dominic Chang) Repository: https://github.com/dominic-chang/Krang.jl Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-paper Version: v0.1.0 Editor: Pending Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Dan Foreman-Mackey

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/378df5c54cd21e293b92ac692c21c0ed"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/378df5c54cd21e293b92ac692c21c0ed/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/378df5c54cd21e293b92ac692c21c0ed/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/378df5c54cd21e293b92ac692c21c0ed)

Author instructions

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

@dominic-chang 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

I'd like to recommend alejandroc137 or aplavin as potential reviewers. I would like to point out that aplavin is at the same institution as me but did not work on this project.

[lrnv]

@dfm I could take this one if you dont mind ?

[dfm]

@lrnv — That would be great if you're available - thank you! Please comment @editorialbot assign me as editor if you're still up for it. Thanks again!

[lrnv]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @lrnv is now the editor

[lrnv]

Dear @dominic-chang I'll be your editor for this review ! First, let us try to find reviewers.

[lrnv]

@alejandroc137, @aplavin, would you guys agree to review this submission for JOSS ? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[aplavin]

Yes!
I haven't done any JOSS reviews before – do we start in this thread already?

[lrnv]

@aplavin Nope, it'll start in another thread. Be assured that I'll ping you and give you the necessary details and links to the docs when the review start, and welcome on-board :) For the moment we are still looking for a second -- or even a third -- reviewer.

[lrnv]

@SouthEndMusic would you be interested in doing a review of this submission for JOSS ? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[lrnv]

@dominic-chang if you know other people that might be good fits to review your work do not hesitate to tell me

[lrnv]

@ExpandingMan, would you be interested in doing a review of this submission for JOSS ? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[alejandroc137]

Hi! Yes, I will be happy to review this submission. Please let me know what I should do next. On Sep 22, 2024, at 5:46 AM, Oskar Laverny ***@***.***> wrote: @alejandroc137, @aplavin, would you guys agree to review this submission for JOSS ? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html —Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[ExpandingMan]

I'll be taking a careful look at this package out of my own interest anyway, so I'd probably be willing. Will let you know after I take a closer look.

[lrnv]

@editorialbot add @aplavin as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@aplavin added to the reviewers list!

[lrnv]

@editorialbot add @alejandroc137 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@alejandroc137 added to the reviewers list!

[lrnv]

@editorialbot add @ExpandingMan as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@ExpandingMan added to the reviewers list!

[lrnv]

@ExpandingMan according to our disucssion on slack, I just added you to the reviewers list

[lrnv]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #7273.