Joss-reviews: [REVIEW]: arcesetc: ARC Echelle Spectroscopic Exposure Time Calculator

[whedon]

Submitting author: @bmorris3 (Brett Morris)
Repository: https://github.com/bmorris3/arcesetc
Version: 0.1
Editor: @arfon
Reviewer: @wtgee
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.2565136

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/e55cda92d4cd45a374fc77907bfd77e6"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/e55cda92d4cd45a374fc77907bfd77e6/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/e55cda92d4cd45a374fc77907bfd77e6/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/e55cda92d4cd45a374fc77907bfd77e6)

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) 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

@wtgee, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @arfon know.

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨

Review checklist for @wtgee

Conflict of interest

• [x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• [x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• [x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• [x] Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (0.1)?
• [x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@bmorris3) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• [x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• [x] 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

• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• [x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• [x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• [x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
• [x] 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

• [x] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @wtgee it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper :tada:.

:star: Important :star:

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

1. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

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

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[arfon]

Hi @wtgee, thanks again for agreeing to review this submission for JOSS. Please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist above and giving feedback in this issue. The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Any questions/concerns please let me know. Also, I realize the holidays and AAS are coming fast so could you aim to have your review complete by the 21st January?

[wtgee]

could you aim to have your review complete by the 21st January?

Shouldn't be a problem and I'll most likely get it done before then, just needed to make sure I had wiggle room if necessary. Thanks!

[bmorris3]

@wtgee – Looking over the review criteria, I realize that the "statement of need" might be underplayed in my write-up without some context. It should be noted that ARCES does not currently have any exposure time calculator, so a tool like arcestec is very much needed.

[bmorris3]

@wtgee – Hope all is well, looking forward to your review 😃

[arfon]

I just emailed the reviewer with a reminder.

[bmorris3]

Thanks @wtgee for the issues! We've addressed each one.

[wtgee]

Ok y'all. Sorry that took me so long. Looks good after the recent changes by @bmorris3!.

@arfon I promise the ones in the future won't take so long!

[bmorris3]

@arfon Are we good to proceed? Thanks! 👍

[arfon]

Ok y'all. Sorry that took me so long. Looks good after the recent changes by @bmorris3!.

@wtgee - just to confirm, are you happy to accept this submission?

[wtgee]

Ok y'all. Sorry that took me so long. Looks good after the recent changes by @bmorris3!.

@wtgee - just to confirm, are you happy to accept this submission?

Yes, LGTM!

[arfon]

@whedon accept

[whedon]

No archive DOI set. Exiting...

[arfon]

@bmorris3 - At this point could you make an archive of the reviewed software in Zenodo/figshare/other service and update this thread with the DOI of the archive? I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

[bmorris3]

Done!

[arfon]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.2565136 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.2565136 is the archive.

[arfon]

@whedon accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

PDF failed to compile for issue #1130 with the following error:

Can't find any papers to compile :-(

[whedon]

```Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

• http://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f is OK

MISSING DOIs

• None

INVALID DOIs

• None
  ```

[arfon]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[arfon]

@whedon accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

```Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

• http://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f is OK

MISSING DOIs

• None

INVALID DOIs

• None
  ```

[whedon]

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/492

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/492, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.
@whedon accept deposit=true

[arfon]

@whedon accept deposit=true

[whedon]

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

[whedon]

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

1. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/493
2. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01130
3. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.

4. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

   Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

[arfon]

@wtgee - many thanks for your review here ✨

@bmorris3 - your paper is now accepted into JOSS :zap::rocket::boom:

[whedon]

:tada::tada::tada: Congratulations on your paper acceptance! :tada::tada::tada:

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01130/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01130)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01130">
  <img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01130/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01130/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01130

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

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: http://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/Mjk3Nzk=

[bmorris3]

Thanks @wtgee and @arfon!