[REVIEW]: AeroAcoustics.jl: A julia package for aeroacoustics

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @1oly (Oliver Lylloff)
Repository: https://github.com/1oly/AeroAcoustics.jl
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper
Version: v0.2.4
Editor: @faroit
Reviewers: @nantonel, @thejasvibr
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.11207482

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9e20f1ec29f69e94bf0c9f1d2c22fa0d"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9e20f1ec29f69e94bf0c9f1d2c22fa0d/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9e20f1ec29f69e94bf0c9f1d2c22fa0d/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9e20f1ec29f69e94bf0c9f1d2c22fa0d)

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

@nantonel & @thejasvibr, 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 @faroit 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 @nantonel

📝 Checklist for @thejasvibr

[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 1.88  T=0.03 s (1154.3 files/s, 79715.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                           19            146             61           1023
Markdown                         5             40              0            228
TeX                              1             15              0            189
YAML                             3              2             10            105
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            334             69
TOML                             3              5              0             41
make                             1              3              0              8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            33            211            405           1663
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 884

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2017-3718 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2017-3719 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apacoust.2016.09.015 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-662-05058-3 is OK
- 10.11581/dtu:00000102 is OK
- 10.1121/1.4922516 is OK
- 10.2514/1.J056113 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsv.2005.12.046 is OK
- 10.1260/147547207783359459 is OK
- 10.1088/1742-6596/2265/2/022103 is OK
- 10.2514/1.J062313 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2022-2981 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03349 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[faroit]

👋 @nantonel @thejasvibr thanks again for helping out. Let me know if you need some help starting the review process.

If you have comments for the submission, I would generally appreciate if you add issues to https://github.com/1oly/AeroAcoustics.jl and add a reference back here so that this issue doesn't become too cluttered.

[thejasvibr]

Hi @faroit I ended being double-booked, by saying yes to two submissions in the pre-review phase and being finalised as a reviewer almost at the same time. Would already like to request some more time for this review (i.e. won't be able to make it in 2-4 weeks).

[faroit]

@editorialbot remind @thejasvibr in two weeks

[editorialbot]

Reminder set for @thejasvibr in two weeks

[editorialbot]

👋 @thejasvibr, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

[faroit]

@nantonel can you update us on the status of the review, please? Also let me know if you need any help.

[nantonel]

Review checklist for @nantonel

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/1oly/AeroAcoustics.jl?
• 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 (@1oly) 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?

[nantonel]

Apologies for the delay, I'll complete this in the following days

[thejasvibr]

👋 @thejasvibr, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

Hi, Will get started next week. Was ill the past two weeks.

[thejasvibr]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @thejasvibr, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Run checks and provide information on the repository and the paper file
@editorialbot check repository

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

[thejasvibr]

Review checklist for @thejasvibr

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/1oly/AeroAcoustics.jl?
• 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 (@1oly) 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?

[nantonel]

From my side, we're good to go 🚀

[faroit]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

The two missing DOIs were checked there doesn't seem to be a good replacement.

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2017-3718 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2017-3719 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apacoust.2016.09.015 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-662-05058-3 is OK
- 10.11581/dtu:00000102 is OK
- 10.1121/1.4922516 is OK
- 10.2514/1.J056113 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsv.2005.12.046 is OK
- 10.1260/147547207783359459 is OK
- 10.1088/1742-6596/2265/2/022103 is OK
- 10.2514/1.J062313 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2022-2981 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03349 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Array signal processing: concepts and techniques
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Aeroacoustics of low mach number flows: Fundamenta...

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👋 @openjournals/pe-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#5350, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[kyleniemeyer]

Hi @1oly, sorry for the delay here! I lost track of this one.

In both the paper title and in the body, please capitalize "Julia". I also noticed an instance of "Python" in the references that needs to be capitalized. Once you fix those little issues, let me know here and I will accept this.

[1oly]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[1oly]

Hi @kyleniemeyer Thanks! Should be fixed now. Let me know if I need to do anything else.

[1oly]

Hi @kyleniemeyer ... and also updated the title in the zenodo archive :) I think I got all of them now.

[kyleniemeyer]

@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: Lylloff
  given-names: Oliver
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1596-107X"
contact:
- family-names: Lylloff
  given-names: Oliver
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1596-107X"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.11207482
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Lylloff
    given-names: Oliver
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1596-107X"
  date-published: 2024-05-28
  doi: 10.21105/joss.06390
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 97
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 6390
  title: "AeroAcoustics.jl: A Julia package for aeroacoustics"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06390"
  volume: 9
title: "AeroAcoustics.jl: A Julia package for aeroacoustics"

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.06390 joss-papers#5399
1. Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06390
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...

[kyleniemeyer]

Congratulations @1oly on your article's publication in JOSS! Please consider signing up as a reviewer if you haven't already.

Many thanks to @nantonel and @thejasvibr for reviewing this, and @faroit for editing.

(I'm going to leave the issue open until the DOI resolves, as it's not working yet for me.)

[1oly]

Thank you @nantonel and @thejasvibr for your competent reviews, and @faroit for handling the submission. I really appreciate the time you put into this 🎉

@kyleniemeyer the DOI is not resolving for me either. Do we just wait it out or should I do anything?

[kyleniemeyer]

@1oly I think there may be some CrossRef issues at the moment. Nothing for you to do - the paper is officially published: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06390

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot reaccept

[editorialbot]

Rebuilding paper!

[editorialbot]

🌈 Paper updated!

New PDF and metadata files 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#5412

[kyleniemeyer]

DOI is now resolving! 🎉

[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.06390/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06390)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06390">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06390/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06390/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06390

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

[faroit]

@1oly congratulations again on your paper. I'm really happy how this come out. @nantonel and @thejasvibr thank for your great reviews!