[PRE REVIEW]: HofstadterTools: A Python package for analyzing the Hofstadter model

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @bartandrews (Bartholomew Andrews)
Repository: https://github.com/HofstadterTools/HofstadterTools.github.io
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @RMeli
Reviewers: @AlexBuccheri, @katherineding
Managing EiC: Kyle Niemeyer

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3cd996ede201132d57ab9c9a7cc56955"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3cd996ede201132d57ab9c9a7cc56955/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3cd996ede201132d57ab9c9a7cc56955/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3cd996ede201132d57ab9c9a7cc56955)

Author instructions

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

@bartandrews 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 1.88  T=0.05 s (882.3 files/s, 126387.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          18            546            781           1652
TeX                              2            100              0           1376
YAML                             6             10              8            599
reStructuredText                14            300            451            262
Jupyter Notebook                 2              0            476            122
CSS                              3              8             14             64
Markdown                         1             15              0             37
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            48            991           1738           4147
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 969

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1088/0370-1298/68/10/304 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.14.2239 is OK
- 10.21468/SciPostPhysLectNotes.5 is OK
- 10.1038/s41699-023-00378-0 is OK
- 10.1088/0034-4885/77/12/126401 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.89.011004 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.166402 is OK
- 10.1088/1367-2630/ac4126 is OK
- 10.1063/1.1611351 is OK
- 10.1142/9781848160224_0014 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.91.015005 is OK
- 10.1038/nature12186 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.185301 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.101.235312 is OK
- 10.1038/ncomms9629 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.103.075132 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.104.184501 is OK
- 10.1038/s42005-019-0151-7 is OK
- 10.1007/BF01342591 is OK
- 10.1038/nature25011 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aao1401 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.96.165150 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-022-05576-2 is OK
- 10.1007/s10955-014-0992-0 is OK
- 10.1088/0256-307X/26/12/123701 is OK
- 10.1088/1751-8113/47/18/185202 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.246403 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1016/b978-0-323-90800-9.00261-4 may be a valid DOI for title: The Ten Martini Problem
- 10.1103/physrevb.108.205144 may be a valid DOI for title: Vortexability: A Unifying Criterion for Ideal Fractional Chern Insulators

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf. Author (Bartholomew Andrews) is missing affiliation.

[kyleniemeyer]

Hello @bartandrews, could you add an affiliation in the paper? That is required for papers to build (even if it just states "Independent researcher" or something similar).

Please also take a look at the DOI messages above.

Unfortunately, we do not have an editor in this area who is available to handle your submission at the moment, so I'll be placing this on our waitlist until someone becomes available.

[kyleniemeyer]

@bartandrews oh, I see that you do have an affiliation block in the paper. You just need to add affiliation: 1 to under your name, and then add index: 1 with the affiliation.

[bartandrews]

Hello @kyleniemeyer, thank you for your comments. I have made the corrections to the references and the affiliation. In terms of recommended referees, Jose Lado may be an appropriate choice (GitHub username: joselado), since he has developed similar software, has been a reviewer for JOSS before, and we do not know each other. Otherwise, out of the JOSS reviewer list, I have had a quick look and the following reviewers could be a good fit: Evan Sheridan, Santosh Kumar, or Mayeul d'Avezac, since they have a background in condensed matter theory.

[bartandrews]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

QuantNBody: a Python package for quantum chemistry and physics to build and manipulate many-body operators and wave functions.
Submitting author: @SYalouz
Handling editor: @jarvist (Active)
Reviewers: @wcwitt, @erikkjellgren
Similarity score: 0.8179

IFermi: A python library for Fermi surface generation and analysis
Submitting author: @utf
Handling editor: @danielskatz (Active)
Reviewers: @arosen93, @lucydot
Similarity score: 0.8165

EMD: Empirical Mode Decomposition and Hilbert-Huang Spectral Analyses in Python
Submitting author: @ajquinn
Handling editor: @dpsanders (Retired)
Reviewers: @JanCBrammer, @EtienneCmb, @neurofractal
Similarity score: 0.8164

FHI-vibes: Ab Initio Vibrational Simulations
Submitting author: @flokno
Handling editor: @jgostick (Active)
Reviewers: @keipertk, @ajjackson
Similarity score: 0.8162

Spectrum: Spectral Analysis in Python
Submitting author: @cokelaer
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @eteq
Similarity score: 0.8146

⚠️ 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.

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot invite @RMeli as editor

Hi @RMeli, can you edit this submission?

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[RMeli]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @RMeli is now the editor

[RMeli]

@joselado 👋 Would you be available to review this submission for JOSS?

[RMeli]

@santoshkumarradha 👋 Would you be available to review this submission for JOSS?

[RMeli]

@yw-fang 👋 Would you be available to review this submission for JOSS?

[yw-fang]

Hi, thank you for the invitation! I am reviewing several other manuscripts, thus I would not be fast at responding. I would appreciate if other reviewers can be review it.

[RMeli]

@yw-fang no worries, thank you for the reply!

[RMeli]

@SYalouz @utf @AJQuinn 👋 Would you be available to review this submission for JOSS?

[RMeli]

@wcwitt, @erikkjellgren, @keipertk, @ajjackson 👋 Would you be interested in reviewing this submission for JOSS?

[wcwitt]

Apologies for the slow reply - I'm unable to review at the moment.

[RMeli]

@erikkjellgren no problem, thank you for letting me know!

[RMeli]

Hi @AlexBuccheri, how are you? Would you be interested in reviewing this submission for JOSS (The Jornal of Open Source Software)? I think it might be your cup of tea (Python + Materials Science). ;)

[AlexBuccheri]

@RMeli sure, no problem 😀

[RMeli]

@editorialbot add @AlexBuccheri as reviewer

Thanks Alex, much appreciated!

[editorialbot]

@AlexBuccheri added to the reviewers list!

[RMeli]

Hi @bartandrews, as you might have noticed, we are struggling to find suitable reviewers for this work. Would you mind suggesting a few other potential reviewers, in case you have someone suitable in mind? Many thanks. Hopefully we can get the actual review started soon.

[ajjackson]

Sorry, I don't think I'll be able to do this one but thanks for asking

[RMeli]

No worries, thanks @ajjackson

[utf]

I'm also unable to review this, apologies.

[RMeli]

No problem @utf, thanks for letting me know.

[bartandrews]

Hi @RMeli, thank you for your efforts in selecting referees. Based on GitHub repositories for "topological materials" and "quantum lattices" that have been helpful to me, I have found the following physicists that have the necessary expertise and may be interested in this work: Zhao-Long Gu (waltergu), Christopher Moore (cphys), Rafał Świętek (Rafal-Swietek). Any feedback that they could provide would be greatly appreciated.

[RMeli]

Thanks for the suggestions @bartandrews!

[RMeli]

@waltergu @cphys 👋 Would you be interested in reviewing this submission for JOSS? (#6195)

[RMeli]

@Rafal-Swietek 👋 Would you be interested in reviewing this submission for JOSS? (#6195)

[bartandrews]

Hi @RMeli, regarding second referee suggestions: shortly after I submitted the software to JOSS and posted the preprint on the arXiv, I was contacted by Katherine Ding (katherineding) from Stanford, who expressed interest in contributing to the package in the future. Since we do not know each other and are not collaborating, I think that she could also be a good choice for a reviewer.

[RMeli]

Thanks for the additional suggestion @bartandrews

[RMeli]

@katherineding 👋 Would you be interested in reviewing this submission for JOSS? (#6195)

[RMeli]

@AlexBuccheri do you have some colleagues that might be interested in reviewing this submission too? Maybe some of your co-authors in #5148 or #5570? Cheers!

[Rafal-Swietek]

@Rafal-Swietek 👋 Would you be interested in reviewing this submission for JOSS? (#6195)

I apologize, but I will not be able to review this work in the coming weeks, but thank you for asking!

[RMeli]

No worries, thank you for letting me know!

[katherineding]

@katherineding 👋 Would you be interested in reviewing this submission for JOSS? (#6195)

Sure, I would be delighted to review this submission.

[RMeli]

Amazing, thanks @katherineding!

[RMeli]

@editorialbot add @katherineding as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@katherineding added to the reviewers list!

[RMeli]

Thank you @AlexBuccheri and @katherineding for agreeing to review for JOSS. I'll soon start the review process, closing this PRE-REVIEW issue and opening a REVIEW issue for the actual review.

If it's your first time reviewing for JOSS, please have a look at the following pages:

• Reviewing for JOSS
• Review criteria
• Review checklist

A good way to review is to open issues in the software repository, and link them to the (soon-to-be-open) review issue.

Do not hesitate to ping me with any questions you might have.

[RMeli]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6356.