[PRE REVIEW]: Astronomical échelle spectroscopy data analysis with muler

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @gully (Michael Gully-Santiago)
Repository: https://github.com/OttoStruve/muler
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.3.0
Editor: @xuanxu
Reviewers: @bmorris3, @wtgee
Managing EiC: Kevin M. Moerman

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c889fa9eeb8a63103533494a1f0b0588"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c889fa9eeb8a63103533494a1f0b0588/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c889fa9eeb8a63103533494a1f0b0588/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c889fa9eeb8a63103533494a1f0b0588)

Author instructions

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

@gully 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 @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.

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

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:

@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 1.88  T=0.16 s (298.5 files/s, 146376.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TeX                              5           1458           1268          12598
Python                          11            547            587           1621
Jupyter Notebook                14              0           4316            436
YAML                             5              9             10            169
Markdown                         4             45              0            120
reStructuredText                 5            104             61            116
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             2              5             11             21
INI                              1              0              0              2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            48           2176           6254          15109
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1030

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/128 is OK
- 10.1117/12.2056431 is OK
- 10.1117/12.2312345 is OK
- 10.1117/12.317283 is OK
- 10.1117/12.395422 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/ab40a7 is OK
- 10.1117/12.926102 is OK
- 10.1117/12.2056417 is OK
- 10.1117/12.2313835 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.845059 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03095 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot invite @xuanxu as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@christinahedges you were suggested as editor here but I see you are handling quite a few submissions already. Perhaps if @xuanxu is not available you could consider it?

[xuanxu]

👋 I can take it

[xuanxu]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @xuanxu is now the editor

[xuanxu]

@aureliocarnero / @bmorris3: would you be willing to review this paper? I think your knowledge of Astrophysics and Python makes both of you a great fit for this submission.

[aureliocarnero]

@aureliocarnero / @bmorris3: would you be willing to review this paper? I think your knowledge of Astrophysics and Python makes both of you a great fit for this submission.

Sorry, Im busy at the moment, apologies for the inconvenience

[gully]

👋 Hi It's me the author. Thanks for organizing @xuanxu. If you're having trouble finding reviewers, I'd recommend looking at the specutils contributors. Our code strongly depends on specutils, so they could have a helpful perspective.

[xuanxu]

Hey @gully! Yes, so far all the reviewers I've contacted are unavailable. I'm still waiting for replies from a couple candidates I emailed yesterday but will try the specutils contributors next, thanks!

[xuanxu]

@eteq / @SaOgaz / @brechmos: would you be willing to review this paper? As specutils contributors all of you are a great fit for this submission.

[bmorris3]

Hi @gully et al., I'm happy to review! What is the expected turnaround time?

[xuanxu]

Hi @bmorris3, thanks! The turnaround time is up to six weeks after the review issue is created.

I'm going to add you as reviewer now, and once we have the second reviewer I'll start the review issue. Stay tuned!

[xuanxu]

@editorialbot add @bmorris3 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@bmorris3 added to the reviewers list!

[xuanxu]

@editorialbot add @wtgee as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@wtgee added to the reviewers list!

[xuanxu]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #4302.