[PRE REVIEW]: X-PSI: A Python package for neutron star X-ray Pulse Simulation and Inference

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @drannawatts (Anna Watts)
Repository: https://github.com/xpsi-group/xpsi
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @adonath
Reviewers: @JohannesBuchner, @matteobachetti
Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/273bb2617b21963c43bd58b279760721"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/273bb2617b21963c43bd58b279760721/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/273bb2617b21963c43bd58b279760721/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/273bb2617b21963c43bd58b279760721)

Author instructions

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

@drannawatts if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

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=4.34 s (40.1 files/s, 14186.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          51           3778           5506          10942
Cython                          58           2414           1606           7986
Jupyter Notebook                12              0          17877           5569
reStructuredText                41           1314           1609           2061
TeX                              1             35              0            456
YAML                             4              6              7            249
Markdown                         2             22              0            139
make                             1              4              6             10
C                                2              0              0              2
C/C++ Header                     2              0              0              2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           174           7573          26611          27416
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 928

[editorialbot]

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4697625 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3386449 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ab451a is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ab53e7 is OK
- 10.1063/1.5117798 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201630261 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aacea0 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00849 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty3090 is OK
- 10.1214/17-BA1075 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00916 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1202077 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jpdc.2007.09.005 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2010.118 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.58 is OK
- 10.1117/12.2231304 is OK
- 10.1086/670067 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1109/99.660313 may be a valid DOI for title: OpenMP: an industry standard API for shared-memory programming

INVALID DOIs

- None

[arfon]

@drannawatts – thanks for your submission to JOSS. We're currently managing a large backlog of submissions and the editor most appropriate for your area is already rather busy.

For now, we will need to waitlist this paper and process it as the queue reduces. Thanks for your patience!

[drannawatts]

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

We think we have identified the issue (with an ORCID) and fixed it. That said, the JOSS Github action managed to generate a pdf for us on the 1st version without a problem!

[drannawatts]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[dfm]

@drannawatts — I wanted to provide a quick update here since I've now taken over as managing editor of this JOSS "track". Thanks again for your submission! All of the suitable editors are still working at capacity, but I'm working to get someone assigned ASAP and I'll keep you posted. Thanks for your patience!

[adonath]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

Thanks @drannawatts for the submission. I'll be the editor for this submission. I'll start looking for suitable reviewers now, but please also let me know if you have any suggestions. Please just add their names in a comment (without explicitly mentioning them using @).

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @adonath is now the editor

[drannawatts]

Possible referees (with whom we don't have conflicts of interest due to co-authorship!) - Anne Archibald, Will Farr, Johannes Buchner?

[adonath]

@editorialbot add @JohannesBuchner as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@JohannesBuchner added to the reviewers list!

[adonath]

@editorialbot add @matteobachetti as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@matteobachetti added to the reviewers list!

[adonath]

Thanks @JohannesBuchner and @matteobachetti for agreeing to review!

I'll start the main review thread now, where you will find more detailed instructions for how the review the submission. So every communication will happen there from now on...

[adonath]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #4977.