[PRE REVIEW]: Stokesian Dynamics in Python

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @Pecnut (Adam K. Townsend)
Repository: https://github.com/Pecnut/stokesian-dynamics
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 2.1.0
Editor: @philipcardiff
Reviewers: @rajeshrinet, @szwiep
Managing EiC: Kyle Niemeyer

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/02b1f1534aa9d721f7cfa1e67a582ef4"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/02b1f1534aa9d721f7cfa1e67a582ef4/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/02b1f1534aa9d721f7cfa1e67a582ef4/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/02b1f1534aa9d721f7cfa1e67a582ef4)

Author instructions

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

@Pecnut 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=0.09 s (493.4 files/s, 127527.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          29           1404           1650           6629
Fortran 77                       4              7            312            694
Markdown                         8            278              0            519
TeX                              1              5              0             79
YAML                             2              5              4             41
JSON                             1              0              0              3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            45           1699           1966           7965
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1146/annurev.fl.20.010188.000551 is OK
- 10.1063/1.5031860 is OK
- 10.1063/1.4989929 is OK
- 10.1007/s10665-017-9935-5 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jnnfm.2018.08.010 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 769

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

Underworld2: Python Geodynamics Modelling for Desktop, HPC and Cloud
Submitting author: @jmansour
Handling editor: @leouieda (Retired)
Reviewers: @gassmoeller, @gabersyd
Similarity score: 0.8097

pySBeLT: A Python software package for stochastic sediment transport under rarefied conditions
Submitting author: @szwiep
Handling editor: @kbarnhart (Retired)
Reviewers: @pfeiffea, @tdoane
Similarity score: 0.8055

pyro: a framework for hydrodynamics explorations and prototyping
Submitting author: @harpolea
Handling editor: @labarba (Retired)
Reviewers: @mikaem, @ngoldbaum
Similarity score: 0.8041

PySD: System Dynamics Modeling in Python
Submitting author: @rogersamso
Handling editor: @pdebuyl (Active)
Reviewers: @blsqr, @sixpearls
Similarity score: 0.8018

PySDM v1: particle-based cloud modeling package for warm-rain microphysics and aqueous chemistry
Submitting author: @piotrbartman
Handling editor: @dhhagan (Active)
Reviewers: @darothen, @josephhardinee
Similarity score: 0.7959

⚠️ 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 before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot invite @philipcardiff as editor

Hi @philipcardiff, could you edit this submission?

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[philipcardiff]

Hi @kyleniemeyer, yes, I am happy to edit this!

[philipcardiff]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @philipcardiff is now the editor

[philipcardiff]

Hi @jmansour, would you be interested in reviewing this submission?

[philipcardiff]

Hi @harpolea, would you be interested in reviewing this submission?

[philipcardiff]

Hi @piotrbartman, would you be interested in reviewing this submission?

[philipcardiff]

Hi @rogersamso, would you be interested in reviewing this submission?

[rogersamso]

Hi @rogersamso, would you be interested in reviewing this submission?

Hi @philipcardiff, thanks for contacting. Unfortunately, I cannot afford to take any extra workload currently.
Good luck with finding reviewers.
Best

[piotrbartman]

@philipcardiff thank you for considering me, but I'm currently unable to commit the necessary time for a review

[jmansour]

@philipcardiff thanks for the consideration, but I won't be able to assist with a review on this occasion.

Best to the authors with their submission.

[philipcardiff]

@rogersamso , @piotrbartman , @jmansour: No problems, thanks anyway.

Can you recommend a suitable reviewer? For example, would one of your co-authors be suitable to review this submission?

[philipcardiff]

Hi @szwiep, would you be interested in reviewing this submission?

[philipcardiff]

Hi @rajeshrinet, would you be interested in reviewing this submission? It seems similar to your PyStokes package.

[jmansour]

@philipcardiff, you could try @rbeucher and @julesghub.

[rajeshrinet]

@philipcardiff I would be happy to review this over the next couple of weeks.

[philipcardiff]

@philipcardiff, you could try @rbeucher and @julesghub.

Thanks, @jmansour, for the suggestions.

@rbeucher, @julesghub: would you be interested in reviewing this submission?

[philipcardiff]

@philipcardiff I would be happy to review this over the next couple of weeks.

Thanks @rajeshrinet

[philipcardiff]

@editorialbot add @rajeshrinet as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@rajeshrinet added to the reviewers list!

[szwiep]

@philipcardiff, thanks for the consideration. I’m comfortable reviewing the functionality and packaging of the project, but don’t think I have the appropriate amount of domain knowledge. Perhaps my co-author @smchartrand might be a better fit as a reviewer, if he has the time?

[philipcardiff]

Thanks @szwiep,

@smchartrand are you interested in reviewing this submission?

[smchartrand]

@philipcardiff<https://github.com/philipcardiff>, I would normally be happy to provide a review. However, at the moment I am reviewing a different submission for JOSS, so my time is limited. Please keep me in mind for any submissions in the future where I may be of help. thanks,

…

-Shawn

________________________________ From: Philip Cardiff ***@***.***> Sent: October 20, 2023 2:44:01 AM To: openjournals/joss-reviews Cc: Shawn Chartrand; Mention Subject: Re: [openjournals/joss-reviews] [PRE REVIEW]: Stokesian Dynamics in Python (Issue #5907) Thanks @szwiep<https://github.com/szwiep>, @smchartrand<https://github.com/smchartrand> are you interested in reviewing this submission? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#5907 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE7I77UU7OO5UQSWSX3ZQNLYAI7K5AVCNFSM6AAAAAA5OSJ4JWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTONZSGM4DKMZWHA>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[philipcardiff]

@philipcardiffhttps://github.com/philipcardiff, I would normally be happy to provide a review. However, at the moment I am reviewing a different submission for JOSS, so my time is limited. Please keep me in mind for any submissions in the future where I may be of help. thanks,
…

No problem (sorry, I should have checked!); thanks anyway.

[philipcardiff]

Hi @szwiep, would you still be happy to review this submission? I appreciate that your review would focus on the functionality rather than the domain, however, the other reviewer (@rajeshrinet) will provide a complementary perspective.

[szwiep]

Hi @philipcardiff, yes, if that works for all parties involved then I'd be happy to review the package over the next couple of weeks.

[philipcardiff]

Thanks @szwiep

[philipcardiff]

@editorialbot add @szwiep as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@szwiep added to the reviewers list!

[philipcardiff]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6011.

[philipcardiff]

@rajeshrinet, @szwiep, we can continue the discussion at the review issue (#6011)