Joss-reviews: [PRE REVIEW]: DynamicalBilliards.jl : An easy-to-use, modular and extendable Julia package for Dynamical Billiard systems in two dimensions.

[whedon]

Submitting author: @Datseris (George Datserus)
Repository: https://github.com/JuliaDynamics/DynamicalBilliards.jl
Version: v1.6.1
Editor: @kyleniemeyer
Reviewer: @ahwillia

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @Datseris. The JOSS editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@Datseris if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon. I'm here to help you with some common editorial tasks for JOSS.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

[Datseris]

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List all of Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# Assign a GitHub user as the reviewer of this submission
@whedon assign @username as reviewer

# List the GitHub usernames of the JOSS editors
@whedon list editors

# List of JOSS reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers

# Change editorial assignment
@whedon assign @username as editor

# Set the software archive DOI at the top of the issue e.g.
@whedon set 10.0000/zenodo.00000 as archive

# Open the review issue
@whedon start review

:construction: Important :construction:

This is all quite new. Please make sure you check the top of the issue after running a @whedon command (you might also need to refresh the page to see the issue update).

[Datseris]

@whedon list reviewers

[whedon]

Here's the current list of JOSS reviewers: https://bit.ly/joss-reviewers

[Datseris]

@whedon assign @ChrisRackauckas as reviewer

[whedon]

I'm sorry @Datseris, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only JOSS editors are allowed to do.

[Datseris]

Cool. So now I guess I just wait.

[kyleniemeyer]

I will handle this submission.

[kyleniemeyer]

@whedon assign @kyleniemeyer as editor

[whedon]

OK, the editor is @kyleniemeyer

[kyleniemeyer]

Hi @Datseris, sorry for the delay—without a suggested editor this fell through the cracks slightly.

Can you suggest one domain-specific reviewer for this package? I noticed that you tried to assign @ChrisRackauckas above, but then in your software README I can see that you acknowledged him as contributing to the code—that would be a conflict of interest, unfortunately. Someone that you had discussed the project with but hadn't actually contributed to the software would be more acceptable.

(and additional comments in the review issue from @ChrisRackauckas or whoever are still welcome, of course)

[Datseris]

Hello, thanks for finally getting into this, I appreciate it.

The following seem to have relation to the Physics area I am interested in:

mlxd
jarvist
ahwillia

but still the connection is not that big... I hope it will be okay.

P.S.: Could you tell me how I can also apply to become a reviewer? I searched the website but I could not find where the application is. Do I just put my name in the google spreadsheet?

[Datseris]

Should I tag these persons? I am not sure how things work here, sorry.

[kyleniemeyer]

Hi @Datseris, I can take care of that—aside from the existing JOSS reviewers, is there anyone closer to your domain who you might recommend? (It's ok if not)

As for adding your name to the reviewer list, you can use this link: http://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html

[ChrisRackauckas]

@ahwillia would be a good fit.

[kyleniemeyer]

@ChrisRackauckas thanks!

Hello @ahwillia @mlxd @jarvist @ahwillia, would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? (I prefer to have at least two reviewers, but more are also welcome if you are interested!) Thanks!

[Datseris]

@kyleniemeyer unfortunately all the people that I can recommend have discussed with me the code in some way or another, therefore the conflict of interests would not go away...

[kyleniemeyer]

@Datseris that's all right, let's see if we can find someone else first. Having a discussion would not be a COI, just actually contributing to the code.

[ahwillia]

I'd be happy to review this.

[kyleniemeyer]

@ahwillia thanks! I'll wait a bit longer to see if any of the others tagged are also willing to review, for a second opinion.

[mlxd]

Also happy to review this.

[kyleniemeyer]

Excellent!

[kyleniemeyer]

@whedon assign @ahwillia as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, the reviewer is @ahwillia

[kyleniemeyer]

@whedon start review

[whedon]

You didn't say the magic word! Try this:

@whedon start review magic-word=bananas

[Datseris]

hahahahaha

[kyleniemeyer]

@whedon start review magic-word=bananas

[whedon]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/458. Feel free to close this issue now!

[kyleniemeyer]

Alright, @Datseris @ahwillia @mlxd we'll move over to #458 for the actual review.

Currently our infrastructure only "officially" supports one reviewer, so @ahwillia will be able to edit the checkboxes, but @mlxd please comment in the thread if you disagree with anything (along with your regular comments).