[PRE REVIEW]: PyNGHam: A Python library of the NGHam protocol

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @mgm8 (Gabriel Marcelino)
Repository: https://github.com/mgm8/pyngham
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @jbytecode
Reviewers: @pritchardn, @0xCoto
Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/cf5b9150f924d3fbb6adee6cd253e040"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/cf5b9150f924d3fbb6adee6cd253e040/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/cf5b9150f924d3fbb6adee6cd253e040/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/cf5b9150f924d3fbb6adee6cd253e040)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @mgm8. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@mgm8 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.

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=0.06 s (492.5 files/s, 51323.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          11            329            531            945
reStructuredText                 8            228            149            403
Markdown                         4             70              0            119
YAML                             4             22             33             99
TeX                              1              8              0             66
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            29            661            720           1641
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1075

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.13140/RG.2.1.1806.0408 is OK
- 10.1137/0108018 is OK
- 10.1109/TLA.2020.9085277 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- Errored finding suggestions for "NGHam protocol", please try later
- Errored finding suggestions for "AX.25 Layer 2", please try later
- Errored finding suggestions for "PyNGHam Library Documentation", please try later
- Errored finding suggestions for "SpaceLab Packet Decoder", please try later
- Errored finding suggestions for "SpaceLab Packet Transmitter", please try later

INVALID DOIs

- None

[danielskatz]

👋 @mgm8 - please add a "Statement of Need" section to your paper, as discussed in https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#what-should-my-paper-contain then use the command @editorialbot generate pdf to make a new PDF. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

You might also see if there is a DOI or URL that can be added for your first reference.

In addition, due to the relatively small amount of code, the editors will now discuss if it meets the substantial scholarly effort criterion for review by JOSS. You should hear back in a week or so.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot query scope

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[mgm8]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[mgm8]

@danielskatz any updates?

[danielskatz]

We'll be switching to track based editors-in-chief in the next week, and I expect the person for this paper will update you then.

[mgm8]

We'll be switching to track based editors-in-chief in the next week, and I expect the person for this paper will update you then.

Ok, thanks.

[danielskatz]

Hi - We've just moved this into the Computer Science, Information Science, and Mathematics Track where I'm the track editor, and I'm now pushing the scope review. It's been slow because this submission is on a topic where we do not have a great deal of overlap with our editors' experience.

[danielskatz]

@mgm8 - this has passed the initial scope review, and we'll proceed to find an editor and start the process

[danielskatz]

👋 @jbytecode - would you be able and willing to edit this submission?

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot invite @jbytecode as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[jbytecode]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

@danielskatz of course.

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @jbytecode is now the editor

[jbytecode]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.13140/RG.2.1.1806.0408 is OK
- 10.1137/0108018 is OK
- 10.1109/TLA.2020.9085277 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[jbytecode]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[jbytecode]

Dear @mgm8,

I am the handling editor of your submission. Please consider the items below:

• Are you aware that there are some entries in the bibtex file that are not cited/referenced in the manuscript? Please use them if you forgot to cite.
• Do you have any suggestions for the potential reviewers? You can take a look at the list of people. If you have suggestions please mention their usernames without using an at (@) symbol just because we don't want to bother them.

Thank you in advance.

[mgm8]

@jbytecode I fixed the reference issue, now all entries of the bibtex file are cited/referenced along the manuscript.

About a potential reviewer, I have a suggestion: Yuri-M-Dias

[jbytecode]

👋👋👋 Dear @Yuri-M-Dias, @simonrp84 👋👋👋

Would you be willing to assist in reviewing this submission for JOSS (Journal of Open Source Software)?

JOSS publishes articles about open source research software. The submission I'd like you to review is titled: "PyNGHam: A Python library of the NGHam protocol". You can find more information at the top of this Github issue (#4768).

The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. If you have any questions please let me know.

This is the pre-review issue. After setting at least 2 reviewers we will start the review process in a seperate thread. In that thread, there will be 23 check items for each single reviewer.

Thank you in advance!

[simonrp84]

Hi, I've been tagged in this but am not sure why. Happy to review for Joss but this article is outside my expertise...

[jbytecode]

@mgm8 - do you have more suggestions for potential reviewers?

[mgm8]

@mgm8 - do you have more suggestions for potential reviewers?

gorlapraveen

[jbytecode]

@mgm8 - we will need at least two reviewers, is it possible to enrich your list?

[jbytecode]

👋👋👋 Dear @gorlapraveen 👋👋👋

Would you be willing to assist in reviewing this submission for JOSS (Journal of Open Source Software)?

JOSS publishes articles about open source research software. The submission I'd like you to review is titled: "PyNGHam: A Python library of the NGHam protocol". You can find more information at the top of this Github issue (#4768).

The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. If you have any questions please let me know.

This is the pre-review issue. After setting at least 2 reviewers we will start the review process in a seperate thread. In that thread, there will be 23 check items for each single reviewer.

Thank you in advance!

[jbytecode]

👋👋👋 Dear @0xCoto and @pritchardn 👋👋👋

Would you be willing to assist in reviewing this submission for JOSS (Journal of Open Source Software)?

JOSS publishes articles about open source research software. The submission I'd like you to review is titled: "PyNGHam: A Python library of the NGHam protocol". You can find more information at the top of this Github issue (#4768).

The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. If you have any questions please let me know.

This is the pre-review issue. After setting at least 2 reviewers we will start the review process in a separate thread. In that thread, there will be 23 check items for each single reviewer.

Thank you in advance!

[pritchardn]

Hello all

I will gladly help review this article 😄

[jbytecode]

@editorialbot add @pritchardn as reviewer

@pritchardn - Thank you for accepting our invitation. I will ping you when the review starts.

[editorialbot]

@pritchardn added to the reviewers list!

[0xCoto]

@jbytecode I took a quick look at the paper and the repository, and (while I'm not specifically familiar with the NGHam protocol itself) I would also be happy to contribute to the review of the work. 🙂

[jbytecode]

@editorialbot add @0xCoto as reviewer

@0xCoto - thank you for accepting our invitation

[editorialbot]

@0xCoto added to the reviewers list!

[jbytecode]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #4915.