[REVIEW]: FluidSF: A Python package for calculating turbulent flow statistics

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @cassidymwagner (Cassidy Wagner)
Repository: https://github.com/cassidymwagner/fluidsf
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.2.0
Editor: @philipcardiff
Reviewers: @ManuelRatz, @MaceKuailv
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a247752fccc0e1e4986996e5d5f67b0f"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a247752fccc0e1e4986996e5d5f67b0f/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a247752fccc0e1e4986996e5d5f67b0f/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a247752fccc0e1e4986996e5d5f67b0f)

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

@ManuelRatz & @MaceKuailv, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

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

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @MaceKuailv

📝 Checklist for @ManuelRatz

[editorialbot]

Hello humans, 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]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1017/jfm.2021.247 is OK
- 10.1063/1.4945631 is OK
- 10.1063/5.0028119 is OK
- 10.1175/jtech-d-15-0180.1 is OK
- 10.1126/sciadv.abq2566 is OK
- 10.1017/s0022112099004851 is OK
- 10.1175/jpo-d-18-0029.1 is OK
- 10.1038/nphys4227 is OK
- 10.1103/physrevfluids.5.054605 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02185 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04277 is OK
- 10.1063/5.0107974 is OK
- 10.17125/gov2018.ch08 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03053 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: A Novel Method to Estimate Spectral Fluxes in Quas...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.98  T=0.09 s (726.3 files/s, 117121.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          34            261            917           4031
Jupyter Notebook                10              0           2721           1293
YAML                             6             35             11            252
TeX                              1             15              0            177
reStructuredText                 7            117             95            116
Markdown                         2             40              0            113
TOML                             1              8              4             55
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
Text                             1              0              0              5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            64            488           3756           6077
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   418	Cassidy Wagner
    87	Brodie Pearson
    14	BrodiePearson
    13	cassidymwagner
     1	Ara Lee

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1111

✅ 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 📄 👈

[MaceKuailv]

Review checklist for @MaceKuailv

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

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 https://github.com/cassidymwagner/fluidsf?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@cassidymwagner) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• 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?

[ManuelRatz]

Review checklist for @ManuelRatz

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

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 https://github.com/cassidymwagner/fluidsf?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@cassidymwagner) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• 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?

[MaceKuailv]

I have finished my review, and I think the package is in pretty good shape. I will check the rest of the boxes once the issues I raised are closed.

[cassidymwagner]

@MaceKuailv Thank you for your review and comments! We will start to work through the issues you opened next week!

[ManuelRatz]

Upfront: My apologies for the late review. I was swamped with a deadline that is now gone.

I finished my review with some (mostly) small remarks that can be easily solved. I will tick the remaining boxes when the issues are closed. Overall, I think the package is very well documented and the paper is well written.

Please let me know if some comments are unclear.

[cassidymwagner]

@ManuelRatz thank you for your review comments and kind words!

@MaceKuailv and @ManuelRatz I have started merging PRs that address your comments and GitHub is automatically closing the linked issues, so please feel free to reopen the issues if the changes do not fully address your comments.

[MaceKuailv]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[MaceKuailv]

The paper is looking good!