[REVIEW]: R3D2: Relativistic Reactive Riemann problem solver for Deflagrations and Detonations about joss-reviews HOT 15 CLOSED

/ cc @openjournals/joss-reviewers - would anyone be willing to review this submission?

If you would like to review this submission then please comment on this thread so that others know you're doing a review (so as not to duplicate effort). Something as simple as :hand: I am reviewing this will suffice.

Reviewer instructions

• Please work through the checklist at the start of this issue.
• If you need any further guidance/clarification take a look at the reviewer guidelines here http://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines
• Please make a publication recommendation at the end of your review

Any questions, please ask for help by commenting on this issue! 🚀

from joss-reviews.

I'll give it a look tomorrow if no one else has a chance. One just got to
take a quick few final exams today.
On May 9, 2016 12:23 PM, "Arfon Smith" [email protected] wrote:

/ cc @openjournals/joss-reviewers
https://github.com/orgs/openjournals/teams/joss-reviewers - would
anyone be willing to review this submission?

If you would like to review this submission then please comment on this
thread so that others know you're doing a review (so as not to duplicate
effort). Something as simple as ✋ I am reviewing this will suffice.

Reviewer instructions

• Please work through the checklist at the start of this issue.
• If you need any further guidance/clarification take a look at the
  reviewer guidelines here
  http://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines
• Please make a publication recommendation at the end of your review

Any questions, please ask for help by commenting on this issue! 🚀

—
You are receiving this because you are on a team that was mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#16 (comment)

from joss-reviews.

This one is the first that probably falls under my area, so I should take a look.

from joss-reviews.

OK @kyleniemeyer - thanks! @gravypod - looks like you're off the hook.

from joss-reviews.

Haven't forgotten about this, just been busy... plan to review this in the next day or so.

from joss-reviews.

OK, finally performed my review (sorry for the delay!). Here are my comments:

• No performance claims (other than in one place stating performance is poor), so technically this is question is satisfied.
• Typo in Usage section of the README (also first page of the docs): eos = eos_defn.eos_gamma_law(5.0/3.0) should be eos = eos_defns.eos_gamma_law(5.0/3.0). In addition, that section could be improved with a bit more detail about what can be done with the rp object once the Riemann Problem has been solved. I can see quite nice detailed examples in the documentation, but something to complete that usage section (what to do with that result, for example) might be good.
• The code itself is not documented, and the online documentation (e.g., "Indices and Tables" section it empty/leads to broken pages).
• Regarding the statement of need, the paper (and software README) give fairly technical descriptions, and could both use a higher-level description of need/intended audience that would be more easily understood by a general reader. For example, many technical readers may not immediately know what the Riemann problem is, so a gentler introduction would help.

(I'll add that the detailed examples given in the documentation on readthedocs are great! 👍)

from joss-reviews.

In fact, I went ahead and corrected the typo in the docs directly via harpolea/r3d2#2

from joss-reviews.

Of course, any other eyes on this (e.g., @gravypod) can only help.

from joss-reviews.

Thanks @kyleniemeyer - we've improved the documentation (adding docstrings to functions and removing the redundant 'Indices and Tables' section from the online docs) and the statement of need: harpolea/r3d2#3, harpolea/r3d2#4, harpolea/r3d2#5

from joss-reviews.

@harpolea those changes look good—did you update the paper with the new statement of need?

@arfon: where would an updated paper show up?

from joss-reviews.

@arfon: where would an updated paper show up?

I updated the paper in the original review issue.

from joss-reviews.

@kyleniemeyer Yes, we updated the paper to include more background information on the Riemann problem and its uses

from joss-reviews.

OK, at this point I think all the review criteria are satisfied.

@arfon recommend accepting now! (meta ?: should I let you add the "accepted" label, or do that myself?)

from joss-reviews.

@arfon recommend accepting now! (meta ?: should I let you add the "accepted" label, or do that myself?)

💥 🎉

from joss-reviews.

@harpolea: http://dx.doi.org/10.21105/joss.00016 ⚡ 💥 🚀

from joss-reviews.