[PRE REVIEW]: commensurability: a Python package for classifying astronomical orbits based on their toroid volume

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @ilikecubesnstuff (Subhadeep Sarkar)
Repository: https://github.com/ilikecubesnstuff/commensurability
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @dfm
Reviewers: @nstarman, @TomWagg
Managing EiC: Dan Foreman-Mackey

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5cde96b4d5f7ac05c9e5f33550da552e"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5cde96b4d5f7ac05c9e5f33550da552e/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5cde96b4d5f7ac05c9e5f33550da552e/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5cde96b4d5f7ac05c9e5f33550da552e)

Author instructions

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

@ilikecubesnstuff 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 1.90  T=0.03 s (1379.1 files/s, 148718.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          18            450            830           1646
Markdown                        16            390              0            906
YAML                             5             17             12            192
TeX                              1             11              0            160
TOML                             1              7              0             70
INI                              1              4              0             19
JavaScript                       1              1              0             15
CSS                              1              3              0             12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            44            883            842           3020
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    76	ilikecubesnstuff
     3	michael-petersen
     1	Subhadeep Sarkar

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1093/mnras/staa3202 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00388 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty2672 is OK
- 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 is OK
- 10.1145/235815.235821 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ace976 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: SuperFreq: Numerical determination of fundamental ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Hierarchical Data Format, version 5

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1230

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

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

[dfm]

@ilikecubesnstuff — Thanks for your submission! All the suitable JOSS editors are currently working at capacity so I'm going to "waitlist" this review until an editor with the relevant expertise is available to take it on. Thanks for your patience!

[ilikecubesnstuff]

Thanks for letting me know, @dfm. Good luck sorting through the submission backlog!

[dfm]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @dfm is now the editor

[dfm]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

KerrGeoPy: A Python Package for Computing Timelike Geodesics in Kerr Spacetime
Submitting author: @syp2001
Handling editor: @xuanxu (Active)
Reviewers: @Uddiptaatwork, @sterinaldi
Similarity score: 0.7150

PyAutoGalaxy: Open-Source Multiwavelength Galaxy Structure & Morphology
Submitting author: @Jammy2211
Handling editor: @christinahedges (Retired)
Reviewers: @alexandergagliano, @sloneil
Similarity score: 0.7140

pygwb: a Python-based library for gravitational-wave background searches
Submitting author: @a-renzini
Handling editor: @plaplant (Active)
Reviewers: @Sbozzolo, @cmbiwer
Similarity score: 0.7088

scida: scalable analysis for scientific big data
Submitting author: @cbyrohl
Handling editor: @mbobra (Active)
Reviewers: @egaraldi, @kyleaoman
Similarity score: 0.7068

exoplanet: Gradient-based probabilistic inference for exoplanet data & other astronomical time series
Submitting author: @dfm
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @grburgess, @benjaminpope
Similarity score: 0.7040

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

[dfm]

👋 @nstarman, @TomWagg, @jobovy — would any 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/review_criteria.html

[nstarman]

@dfm, yes I'm very interested to review this JOSS submission. Could you confirm the timeline you need the review completed by? Looking forward to reading.

[dfm]

@editorialbot add @nstarman as reviewer

Thanks @nstarman! Once the review begins, we typically try to complete the review in 4-6 weeks but, unlike your typical journal review, JOSS reviews are iterative without specific rounds of reviewing and responding, so it's useful to get started on the review ASAP. As soon as we have a second reviewer lined up I'll have a lot more specific info for everyone in a new thread, but I'm happy to answer any other questions in the meantime. Thanks again for agreeing to review!

[editorialbot]

@nstarman added to the reviewers list!

[jobovy]

Sorry, I'm not available to do this review right now and @nstarman and my review might be too correlated anyway 😄 .

[TomWagg]

@dfm I'd be happy to review, looks very cool! (Though fair warning this would be my first time reviewing). However, I'm away on holiday until the start of August so I wouldn't be able to look properly until then.

[dfm]

@editorialbot add @TomWagg as reviewer

🎉 Thanks @TomWagg!! (And thanks also to @jobovy for your response!)

I'm going to get the main review started in a new thread. Let me know if you have any questions as we go!

[editorialbot]

@TomWagg added to the reviewers list!

[dfm]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #7009.