[REVIEW]: ndsplines: A Python Library for Tensor-Product B-Splines of Arbitrary Dimension #1745

whedon · 2019-09-18T10:08:43Z

Submitting author: @sixpearls (Benjamin Margolis)
Repository: https://github.com/kb-press/ndsplines/
Version: 0.1.1
Editor: @mbobra
Reviewer: @amritagos, @sarats
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3516465

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2105c9d4cfe04cc994d56f389c273111"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2105c9d4cfe04cc994d56f389c273111/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2105c9d4cfe04cc994d56f389c273111/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2105c9d4cfe04cc994d56f389c273111)

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

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

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

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @mbobra know.

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

Review checklist for @amritagos

Conflict of interest

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

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 repository url?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@sixpearls) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

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: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
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?

Review checklist for @sarats

Conflict of interest

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

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 repository url?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@sixpearls) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

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: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
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?

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

whedon · 2019-09-18T10:08:46Z

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @amritagos, @sarats it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper 🎉.

⭐ Important ⭐

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:

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

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

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

@whedon generate pdf

whedon · 2019-09-18T10:08:47Z

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon · 2019-09-18T10:09:14Z

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

amritagos · 2019-09-18T10:18:11Z

@whedon check references

whedon · 2019-09-18T10:18:13Z

Attempting to check references...

whedon · 2019-09-18T10:18:32Z


OK DOIs

- 10.21105/joss.00396 is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2011.37 is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2010.118 is OK
- 10.1002/zamm.19800600129 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2019-2901 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2002-4482 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

mbobra · 2019-09-20T10:14:09Z

/ooo September 23 until September 27

ooo · 2019-09-20T10:14:10Z

👍 Marked @mbobra as OOO from Monday, September 23rd 2019 to Friday, September 27th 2019. 📆

sixpearls · 2019-10-04T22:12:37Z

Hi @amritagos, @sarats, how are the reviews going? Thanks for opening the issue about the license, @amritagos. We will likely wait to bulk process some of the smaller corrections like this one.

CC'ing my co-author, @ixjlyons

amritagos · 2019-10-06T01:44:18Z

Hi @sixpearls, I have completed my review and am waiting for the issue to be resolved for my closing comments. Great work!

amritagos · 2019-10-07T17:53:34Z

@mbobra, I have completed my review and am certain that the work presented by @sixpearls and @ixjlyons is well within the JOSS purview. The work is in accordance with the rules and standards of JOSS and I am glad to recommend this for acceptance and subsequent publication. Thanks!

mbobra · 2019-10-07T18:23:24Z

Thank you, @amritagos!

mbobra · 2019-10-07T18:23:55Z

@whedon remind @sarats in one hour

whedon · 2019-10-07T18:23:58Z

Reminder set for @sarats in one hour

whedon · 2019-10-07T19:24:15Z

👋 @sarats, please update us on how your review is going.

sixpearls · 2019-10-07T19:26:52Z

Thank you @amritagos!

mbobra · 2019-10-14T22:09:25Z

@whedon remind @sarats in one hour

whedon · 2019-10-14T22:09:28Z

Reminder set for @sarats in one hour

whedon · 2019-10-14T23:09:36Z

👋 @sarats, please update us on how your review is going.

sarats · 2019-10-15T21:16:43Z

Nice work, good to go.

Sorry for the delay. I was away from work last week.

mbobra · 2019-10-15T21:20:15Z

Thank you, @sarats! (And congratulations!)

mbobra · 2019-10-15T21:24:27Z

@sixpearls We're almost there! Can you please archive your release on Zenodo to obtain a DOI and then put that DOI in your readme.rst file? Please make sure that the title and author list on the Zenodo archive match the title and author list of the JOSS paper. After that I think we're done 🎉

whedon · 2019-10-23T19:06:57Z

Attempting to check references...

whedon · 2019-10-23T19:07:17Z


OK DOIs

- 10.21105/joss.00396 is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2011.37 is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2010.118 is OK
- 10.1002/zamm.19800600129 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2019-2901 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2002-4482 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

mbobra · 2019-10-23T19:08:05Z

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3516465 as archive

whedon · 2019-10-23T19:08:09Z

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3516465 is the archive.

mbobra · 2019-10-23T19:08:35Z

@whedon set 0.1.1 as version

whedon · 2019-10-23T19:08:39Z

OK. 0.1.1 is the version.

mbobra · 2019-10-23T19:09:24Z

@openjournals/joss-eics This paper is ready for acceptance! Nice work @sixpearls @ixjlyons 🎉

kthyng · 2019-10-24T18:01:26Z

Hi @sixpearls! It looks like the citations in your paper aren't working when you have more than one because you are using commas to separate multiple references — please update to use semicolons. Also, please go through your references file and use {} around any words that need to stay capitalized, like MATLAB. The {} preserve capitalization.

sixpearls · 2019-10-25T14:45:58Z

@whedon generate pdf

whedon · 2019-10-25T14:46:01Z

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon · 2019-10-25T14:46:28Z

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

sixpearls · 2019-10-25T14:48:52Z

Hi @kthyng, thank you for catching that. My co-author @ixjlyons has made those corrections and it looks correct now. Let us know if there are any other corrections.

kthyng · 2019-10-25T16:13:41Z

Great! Sorry I didn't realize to mention both @sixpearls and @ixjlyons.

The paper is looking good!

kthyng · 2019-10-25T16:13:45Z

@whedon accept

whedon · 2019-10-25T16:13:48Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon · 2019-10-25T16:14:16Z


OK DOIs

- 10.21105/joss.00396 is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2011.37 is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2010.118 is OK
- 10.1002/zamm.19800600129 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2019-2901 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2002-4482 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon · 2019-10-25T16:14:33Z

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#1053

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#1053, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

kthyng · 2019-10-25T16:15:12Z

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon · 2019-10-25T16:15:15Z

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

whedon · 2019-10-25T16:16:08Z

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

whedon · 2019-10-25T16:16:08Z

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

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.01745 joss-papers#1054
Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01745
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

kthyng · 2019-10-25T16:19:38Z

Congrats @sixpearls and @ixjlyons on your new paper!! 🎉 🎉

Thanks very much to @amritagos and @sarats for your time and expertise as reviewers, and thanks to @mbobra for editing.

whedon · 2019-10-25T16:19:41Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.01745/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01745)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01745">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01745/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01745/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01745

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: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

whedon added the review label Sep 18, 2019

whedon assigned mbobra Sep 18, 2019

whedon mentioned this issue Sep 18, 2019

[PRE REVIEW]: ndsplines: A Python Library for Tensor-Product B-Splines of Arbitrary Dimension #1697

Closed

amritagos mentioned this issue Sep 18, 2019

[JOSS] License Formatting kb-press/ndsplines#53

Closed

whedon assigned amritagos and sarats Sep 19, 2019

This was referenced Sep 23, 2019

[REVIEW]: Generic reinforcement learning codebase in TensorFlow #1524

Closed

[PRE REVIEW]: memochange: An R package for estimation procedures and tests for persistent time series #1765

Closed

whedon added the accepted label Oct 25, 2019

kthyng closed this as completed Oct 25, 2019

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman mentioned this issue Nov 1, 2019

[PRE REVIEW]: HRV: a Pythonic package for Heart Rate Variability Analysis #1846

Closed

whedon added published Papers published in JOSS recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. labels Mar 2, 2020

editorialbot mentioned this issue Dec 30, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: Minterpy: multivariate polynomial interpolation in Python #7619

Closed

editorialbot mentioned this issue May 15, 2025

[PRE REVIEW]: smolyax: a high-performance implementation of the Smolyak interpolation operator in JAX #8204

Open

[REVIEW]: ndsplines: A Python Library for Tensor-Product B-Splines of Arbitrary Dimension #1745

[REVIEW]: ndsplines: A Python Library for Tensor-Product B-Splines of Arbitrary Dimension #1745

Comments

whedon commented Sep 18, 2019 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Review checklist for @amritagos

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @sarats

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

whedon commented Sep 18, 2019

whedon commented Sep 18, 2019

whedon commented Sep 18, 2019

amritagos commented Sep 18, 2019

whedon commented Sep 18, 2019

whedon commented Sep 18, 2019

mbobra commented Sep 20, 2019

ooo bot commented Sep 20, 2019

sixpearls commented Oct 4, 2019 • edited Loading

amritagos commented Oct 6, 2019

amritagos commented Oct 7, 2019

mbobra commented Oct 7, 2019

mbobra commented Oct 7, 2019

whedon commented Oct 7, 2019

whedon commented Oct 7, 2019

sixpearls commented Oct 7, 2019

mbobra commented Oct 14, 2019

whedon commented Oct 14, 2019

whedon commented Oct 14, 2019

sarats commented Oct 15, 2019 • edited Loading

mbobra commented Oct 15, 2019

mbobra commented Oct 15, 2019

whedon commented Oct 23, 2019

whedon commented Oct 23, 2019

mbobra commented Oct 23, 2019

whedon commented Oct 23, 2019

mbobra commented Oct 23, 2019

whedon commented Oct 23, 2019

mbobra commented Oct 23, 2019

kthyng commented Oct 24, 2019

sixpearls commented Oct 25, 2019

whedon commented Oct 25, 2019

whedon commented Oct 25, 2019

sixpearls commented Oct 25, 2019

kthyng commented Oct 25, 2019

kthyng commented Oct 25, 2019

whedon commented Oct 25, 2019

whedon commented Oct 25, 2019

whedon commented Oct 25, 2019

kthyng commented Oct 25, 2019

whedon commented Oct 25, 2019

whedon commented Oct 25, 2019

whedon commented Oct 25, 2019

kthyng commented Oct 25, 2019

whedon commented Oct 25, 2019

whedon commented Sep 18, 2019 •

edited

Loading

sixpearls commented Oct 4, 2019 •

edited

Loading

sarats commented Oct 15, 2019 •

edited

Loading