Joss-reviews: [PRE REVIEW]: astrosource: automating optical astronomy measurement, calibration and analysis for variable stellar sources from provided photometry

[whedon]

Submitting author: @mfitzasp (Michael Fitzgerald)
Repository: https://github.com/zemogle/astrosource/
Version: v1.4.0
Editor: @arfon
Reviewers: @bsipocz, @joshspeagle
Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

Author instructions

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

@mfitzasp 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 @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, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

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

@whedon commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.84  T=0.09 s (338.0 files/s, 49831.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          18            541            367           2262
TeX                              1             25              0            267
Markdown                         2             80              0            156
reStructuredText                 3             68             21            128
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            195             65
YAML                             2              6              4             35
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            29            732            595           2948
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Statistical information for the repository '2591' was gathered on 2020/08/21.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Edward Gomez                    90          8532           5454           78.91
Joe Singleton                    3          1799           1765           20.11
Michael Fitzgerald              11           123             52            0.99

Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:

Author                     Rows      Stability          Age       % in comments
Edward Gomez               3025           35.5          8.9                8.36
Joe Singleton                69            3.8         13.1                1.45
Michael Fitzgerald           76           61.8          2.2                9.21

[whedon]

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

[whedon]

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1080/21672857.2017.1303264 is OK
- 10.1117/12.2314340 is OK
- 10.1086/673168 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00058 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1017/pasa.2014.30 may be missing for title: A review of high school level astronomy student research projects over the last two decades
- https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/77 may be missing for title: AstroImageJ: Image processing and photometric extraction for ultra-precise astronomical light curves
- https://doi.org/10.1017/pasa.2018.5 may be missing for title: SkyMapper Southern Survey: First Data Release (DR1)
- https://doi.org/10.1109/mcse.2011.37 may be missing for title: The NumPy Array: A Structure for Efficient Numerical Computation
- https://doi.org/10.1109/mcse.2007.55 may be missing for title: Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment
- https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20020802 may be missing for title: A box-fitting algorithm in the search for periodic transits

INVALID DOIs

- None

[arfon]

:wave: @mfitzasp - does this paper accompany a paper in a AAS journal?

Also, please take a look at the suggestions for potentially missing DOIs from Whedon above. If they look correct, please add them to your BibTeX file.

[arfon]

@whedon assign me as editor

[whedon]

OK, the editor is @arfon

[mfitzasp]

Hi Arfon!

No, the paper does not accompany a paper in a AAS journal. We had only been
focussing on submitting to JOSS, so had not considered submitting to a
AAS journal.

I've updated those dois and then double checked them all and found a couple
that Whedon didn't catch either

Hope you are having a good day,

Michael

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 1:59 AM Arfon Smith [e-mail]
wrote:

👋 @mfitzasp https://github.com/mfitzasp - does this paper accompany a
paper in a AAS journal?

Also, please take a look at the suggestions for potentially missing DOIs
from Whedon above. If they look correct, please add them to your BibTeX
file.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/2591#issuecomment-678365848,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEAHGNQP35OHSP2CDK5XS4DSB2KUZANCNFSM4QHICWAQ
.

--
Book a zoom meeting: https://oursolarsiblings.appointlet
.com/s/1-hour-consultation/michael-fitzgerald

Michael Fitzgerald
Chief Investigator, Our Solar Siblings (www.oursolarsiblings.com)
Academic Publications:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=S8FLmY8AAAAJ
Secretary, IAU Commission C1
Organizer, Remote Telescopes, Student Research and Education Conference (
rtsre.net)
Mobile: [phone]
Email: [email protected]

[arfon]

@whedon check references

[whedon]

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1080/21672857.2017.1303264 is OK
- 10.1117/12.2314340 is OK
- 10.1086/673168 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00058 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1017/pasa.2014.30 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1002/asna.201512254 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/77 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1088/1538-3873/ab7ee7 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1017/pasa.2018.5 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/12 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.32374/atom.2020.1.2 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.32374/atom.2020.1.4 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1109/mcse.2011.37 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1109/mcse.2007.55 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.32374/atom.2020.1.1 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20020802 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[arfon]

:+1: great, thanks.

A couple of things:

• Do you know of any people who might be able to give this software a good review? If so, please mention them here.
• Please tweak your BibTeX one more time: DOIs should look like e.g. 10.1017/pasa.2014.30 not https://doi.org/10.1017/pasa.2014.30 in your BibTeX file.

[zemogle]

Hey @arfon! Ideas for reviewers are @bsipocz and @rzellem

The DOIs should be fixed now 👍

[zemogle]

@whedon check references

[whedon]

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1080/21672857.2017.1303264 is OK
- 10.1017/pasa.2014.30 is OK
- 10.1002/asna.201512254 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/77 is OK
- 10.1088/1538-3873/ab7ee7 is OK
- 10.1017/pasa.2018.5 is OK
- 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/12 is OK
- 10.1117/12.2314340 is OK
- 10.1086/673168 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2011.37 is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2007.55 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00058 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361:20020802 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- 10.32374/atom.2020.1.2 is INVALID
- 10.32374/atom.2020.1.4 is INVALID
- 10.32374/atom.2020.1.1 is INVALID

[zemogle]

Hmmm. Those are the DOIs referenced in ATOM. It looks like they don't resolve correctly.

[arfon]

:wave: @bsipocz & @rzellem - would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

[arfon]

Hmmm. Those are the DOIs referenced in ATOM. It looks like they don't resolve correctly.

Indeed. I've enquired here: https://twitter.com/arfon/status/1298252048861814784

[rzellem]

Normally I'd be happy to review submissions, @arfon, but I'm refereeing another 3 journals at the moment. I recommend you reach out to @pearsonkyle

[arfon]

👍 thanks for the quick response @rzellem! :wave: @pearsonkyle - would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

[mfitzasp]

@whedon check references

[whedon]

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1080/21672857.2017.1303264 is OK
- 10.1017/pasa.2014.30 is OK
- 10.1002/asna.201512254 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/77 is OK
- 10.1088/1538-3873/ab7ee7 is OK
- 10.1017/pasa.2018.5 is OK
- 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/12 is OK
- 10.32374/atom.2020.1.2 is OK
- 10.32374/atom.2020.1.4 is OK
- 10.1117/12.2314340 is OK
- 10.1086/673168 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2011.37 is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2007.55 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00058 is OK
- 10.32374/atom.2020.1.1 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361:20020802 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[bsipocz]

@arfon - what is the expected timeline? I'm fully occupied this week and next with AstroHackWeek, but would be happy to start with the review afterwards.

[arfon]

@arfon - what is the expected timeline? I'm fully occupied this week and next with AstroHackWeek, but would be happy to start with the review afterwards.

Ideally sometime in the next ~4 weeks?

[arfon]

@bsipocz - I'm going to take your 👍 to my comment above as consent to add you as a reviewer. Please let me know if this isn't correct!

[arfon]

@whedon add @bsipocz as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, @bsipocz is now a reviewer

[arfon]

:wave: @joshspeagle @catherinezucker - would either of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

[joshspeagle]

I’d be happy to sign up as a reviewer.

[arfon]

@whedon add @joshspeagle as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, @joshspeagle is now a reviewer

[arfon]

@whedon start review

[whedon]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/2641.

[arfon]

@bsipocz, @joshspeagle - many thanks for agreeing to review this submission. See you over in #2641 where the review will take place.