@editorialbot generate pdf

Anyone here can do this ☝️ @MikeSWang

from joss-reviews.

Thanks @MikeSWang! I am doing a quick read through the paper to make sure the text and references are ok.

from joss-reviews.

Many thanks to @alfonso-veropalumbo and @wcoulton for reviewing and to @ivastar for editing! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you!!

@MikeSWang — Your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS! ⚡🚀💥

from joss-reviews.

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

from joss-reviews.

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.16 s (752.3 files/s, 230036.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C++                             12           1440           1092           6711
Python                          25           1756           3137           4879
CSS                              4            453            161           2033
Cython                           9            366            468           1125
YAML                            14            206            212            803
C/C++ Header                    11            372           2243            757
Markdown                        11            241              0            524
Jupyter Notebook                 7              0           3961            451
reStructuredText                 8            277            272            305
TeX                              2             22              0            247
make                             2            129             91            217
JavaScript                       4             56            103            215
Bourne Shell                     4             64            112            169
INI                              2             56              0            148
TOML                             1             13              2             92
HTML                             2              3             32             68
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           118           5454          11886          18744
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

from joss-reviews.

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1093/mnras/sty3249 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx2333 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.063508 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1110.3193 is OK
- 10.1007/s41114-017-0010-3 is OK
- 10.1016/s0370-1573(02)00135-7 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.023522 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx721 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083533 is OK
- 10.1086/307220 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.083532 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty1063 is OK
- 10.1093/pasj/58.1.93 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw2576 is OK
- 10.1201/9780367806934 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aadae0 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw1229 is OK
- 10.1086/427087 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 is OK
- 10.1086/174036 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

from joss-reviews.

Wordcount for paper.md is 1615

from joss-reviews.

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

from joss-reviews.

Review checklist for @wcoulton

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/MikeSWang/Triumvirate?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@MikeSWang) 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?

from joss-reviews.

Dear @MikeSWang,

In general I think that this package is amazing! It has lots of useful functionality and it is easy to install and use. I can certainly see myself using this in future projects! 

I had four minor comments:

1. I think it would be useful to add a little more description to the returns of the functions in the documentation. A few function outputs are just described as "results – Measurement results". The actual returned dictionary has a few parts and it could be useful to either describe that there or link to the examples where the output is explained in detail. 
2. Unless I have misunderstood, it seems necessary to repeatedly run the program, iteratively updating idx_bin, to compute all the elements in the full 2D bispectrum. For my applications, and I suspect that of some other users, the full bispectrum would often be of interest. Perhaps a function could be added that returns this? 
3. Perhaps in the background material you could add a sentence or two more summarizing the window functions?
4. In your supporting paper, I think it may be useful to add a reference to, and discussion of, some other codes that have some similar functionality. The first one that jumps first to mind is:
   https://github.com/oliverphilcox/Spectra-Without-Windows

Super minor: there seems to be an example folder in the repo but it is empty?

This package is wonderful, congratulations! My apologies for the slow review.

from joss-reviews.

Review checklist for @alfonso-veropalumbo

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/MikeSWang/Triumvirate?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@MikeSWang) 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?

from joss-reviews.

Thanks @wcoulton for your valuable feedback!

I just came back from a conference and will be travelling again soon, but I will incorporate your suggestions especially with regard to number 2 (you're right about it; I have just opened a new feature request MikeSWang/Triumvirate#22).

A quick response to the last comment: the examples folder is a placeholder, and I meant to collect users' scripts for different use cases like a 'gallery', which may not be formal enough to be included in the official documentation :)

Dear @MikeSWang,

In general I think that this package is amazing! It has lots of useful functionality and it is easy to install and use. I can certainly see myself using this in future projects! 

I had four minor comments:

1. I think it would be useful to add a little more description to the returns of the functions in the documentation. A few function outputs are just described as "results – Measurement results". The actual returned dictionary has a few parts and it could be useful to either describe that there or link to the examples where the output is explained in detail.
2. Unless I have misunderstood, it seems necessary to repeatedly run the program, iteratively updating idx_bin, to compute all the elements in the full 2D bispectrum. For my applications, and I suspect that of some other users, the full bispectrum would often be of interest. Perhaps a function could be added that returns this?
3. Perhaps in the background material you could add a sentence or two more summarizing the window functions?
4. In your supporting paper, I think it may be useful to add a reference to, and discussion of, some other codes that have some similar functionality. The first one that jumps first to mind is:
   https://github.com/oliverphilcox/Spectra-Without-Windows

Super minor: there seems to be an example folder in the repo but it is empty?

This package is wonderful, congratulations! My apologies for the slow review.

from joss-reviews.

@alfonso-veropalumbo thank you for going through the checklist! If you have any comments in addition to those previously listed, please add them here. If not, let me and the authors know that they can move to responding to the review.

from joss-reviews.

Dear @MikeSWang

First of all, thank you for your patience. I'm sorry for this delayed answer.

I've had the chance to test Triumvirate, and I've particularly appreciated the ease of use, the completeness of the documentation and the high performance in dealing with this task.
Moreover, the advantage of Triumvirate is that it allows computation of the anisotropic three-point correlation function (3PCF), fully exploiting the information encoded in the higher orders moment of the galaxy density field. This aspect constitutes a new feature (apart from Triumvirate predecessor, Hitomi) and a critical advancement of the clustering field.

I have minor suggestions related to the paper:

1. quantify performances in the paper. 3PCF computation is generally thought to be (and for large samples, it is) an expensive procedure, and it could be helpful to report the performances of this specific task.
2. improve the comparison with other codes on the market (e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.08722). On this point, I have a doubt about the description of nbodykit made in the draft.
   Looking at the documentation (https://nbodykit.readthedocs.io/en/latest/api/_autosummary/nbodykit.algorithms.threeptcf.html#nbodykit.algorithms.threeptcf.SimulationBox3PCF) nbodykit implements the Slepian 2015 procedure, which is not assigning spherical harmonics to the mesh grid. This procedure computes the spherical harmonics on a pair-to-pair basis. As a result, it should be more accurate but significantly slower.

Apart from these minor comments, thank you again for this work, which is important for the clustering community.
I hope packages like this will help people approach this field, which will gain more and more importance for clustering analyses in cosmology.

Sorry again for the delayed comments. I'm available in case further clarifications are needed.

from joss-reviews.

Thank you @alfonso-veropalumbo for the detailed review! @MikeSWang the ball is in your court. Please let us all know when you've had a chance to address the comments.

from joss-reviews.

Thank you all for the updates! I'm back from travelling and will address these comments in the coming weeks.

A quick question about comment 1 from @alfonso-veropalumbo: we have included some performance metrics for the bispectrum, so I guess you are asking about the 3PCF in configuration space in particular?

And a quick reply to comment 2: nbodykit's 3PCF algorithm does use the actual lines of sight, and in the paper we were thinking about its 2-point algorithms... Given it would be better to compare with its 3PCF, I will clarify this in the text.

from joss-reviews.

Friendly reminder to get to these updates soon please @MikeSWang. @alfonso-veropalumbo – I think the author asked you a question here too...

A quick question about comment 1 from @alfonso-veropalumbo: we have included some performance metrics for the bispectrum, so I guess you are asking about the 3PCF in configuration space in particular?

from joss-reviews.

Hi @arfon thanks for the reminder. Indeed as I am writing now I am working on resubmitting the new draft and making a new release, aiming for the coming week. Apologies summer travel and other things have delayed my response. I have also added other optimisations to the code not asked for by the reviewer, hence the new version release has taken longer.

from joss-reviews.

I actually have a question about updating the draft @arfon @ivastar. It will be available in a new commit in my own repo, but how do I get the JOSS editorial bot to compile it here?

from joss-reviews.

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

from joss-reviews.

Friendly reminder to get to these updates soon please @MikeSWang. @alfonso-veropalumbo – I think the author asked you a question here too...

A quick question about comment 1 from @alfonso-veropalumbo: we have included some performance metrics for the bispectrum, so I guess you are asking about the 3PCF in configuration space in particular?

Yes, sure, I think it could be useful. Computational time is the main issue, computationally speaking, for configuration space estimators (and particularly for 3PCF).

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot commands

from joss-reviews.

Hello @MikeSWang, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot check references
@editorialbot check repository

from joss-reviews.

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1093/mnras/sty3249 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx2333 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.063508 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1110.3193 is OK
- 10.1007/s41114-017-0010-3 is OK
- 10.1016/s0370-1573(02)00135-7 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.023522 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx721 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083533 is OK
- 10.1086/307220 is OK
- 10.1093/pasj/58.1.93 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw2576 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.083532 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv2119 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty1063 is OK
- 10.1093/mnrasl/slv133 is OK
- 10.1103/physrevd.104.123529 is OK
- 10.1201/9780367806934 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aadae0 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw1229 is OK
- 10.1086/427087 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 is OK
- 10.1086/174036 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot check references

from joss-reviews.

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1093/mnras/sty3249 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx2333 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.063508 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1110.3193 is OK
- 10.1007/s41114-017-0010-3 is OK
- 10.1016/s0370-1573(02)00135-7 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.023522 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx721 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083533 is OK
- 10.1086/307220 is OK
- 10.1093/pasj/58.1.93 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw2576 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.083532 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv2119 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty1063 is OK
- 10.1093/mnrasl/slv133 is OK
- 10.1103/physrevd.104.123529 is OK
- 10.1201/9780367806934 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aadae0 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw1229 is OK
- 10.1086/427087 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 is OK
- 10.1086/174036 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot check repository

from joss-reviews.

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.23 s (539.2 files/s, 171570.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C++                             12           1658           1115           8095
Python                          27           1798           3238           5115
CSS                              4            453            161           2033
Cython                          11            391            517           1201
YAML                            14            216            304            817
C/C++ Header                    11            388           2304            799
Markdown                        11            291              0            637
reStructuredText                 9            355            290            441
Jupyter Notebook                 7              0           4088            439
TeX                              2             26              0            284
make                             2            137            100            256
JavaScript                       4             56            103            215
INI                              2             60              0            201
Bourne Shell                     4             64            112            169
TOML                             1             13              2             92
HTML                             2              3             32             68
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           123           5909          12366          20862
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

from joss-reviews.

Wordcount for paper.md is 2080

from joss-reviews.

Dear editor @ivastar and reviewers @wcoulton & @alfonso-veropalumbo,

Many thanks for your feedback and patience. I am happy to announce that

• updated manuscript: @editorialbot generate pdf (see comment box below for output)
• new code release: v0.3.0

are now both available.

To address your questions in turn:

• @wcoulton

  1. I have added details of the output in both the API documentation and tutorials;
  2. This new feature was raised as an issue (MikeSWang/Triumvirate#22) and completed;
  3. I have added more background about the window function in both the documentation and the paper;
  4. This part is expanded as also suggested by @alfonso-veropalumbo.

• @alfonso-veropalumbo

  1. I have added more details about the 3PCF performance including computation time and memory in the table;
  2. This part is expanded as also suggested by @wcoulton.

In the meantime, there have been other bug fixes, additional features, performance enhancement, code maintenance and documentation improvements since the reviewed release.

Let me know if you have any questions and many thanks again!

On behalf of all authors,
@MikeSWang

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

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

from joss-reviews.

@MikeSWang thank you for making the changes recommended by the reviewer!

@wcoulton & @alfonso-veropalumbo, please review the changes and if you are satisfied with the code and manuscript, please comment that you accept the submission for publication.

Otherwise, comment further on the relevant issues or in this thread to recommend further changes.

from joss-reviews.

@wcoulton & @alfonso-veropalumbo, pinging this thread again. I would appreciate it if you could sign off on the changes so we can move to publication.

from joss-reviews.

This all looks good to me and I am happy to recommend that the submission for publication.
Great work!!

from joss-reviews.

Everything looks good to me! Green light from my side for publication. Thank you very much for your work!

from joss-reviews.

Thank you @wcoulton, @alfonso-veropalumbo and @ivastar for your work and feedback too!

from joss-reviews.

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

• Double check authors and affiliations (including ORCIDs)
• Make a release of the software with the latest changes from the review and post the version number here. This is the version that will be used in the JOSS paper.
• Archive the release on Zenodo/figshare/etc and post the DOI here.
• Make sure that the title and author list (including ORCIDs) in the archive match those in the JOSS paper.
• Make sure that the license listed for the archive is the same as the software license.

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance

• Read the text of the paper and offer comments/corrections (as either a list or a PR)
• Check the references in the paper for corrections (e.g. capitalization)
• Check that the archive title, author list, version tag, and the license are correct
• Set archive DOI with @editorialbot set <DOI here> as archive
• Set version with @editorialbot set <version here> as version
• Double check rendering of paper with @editorialbot generate pdf
• Specifically check the references with @editorialbot check references and ask author(s) to update as needed
• Recommend acceptance with @editorialbot recommend-accept

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

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

from joss-reviews.

I can confirm the following:

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

• Double check authors and affiliations (including ORCIDs)
• Make a release of the software with the latest changes from the review and post the version number here. This is the version that will be used in the JOSS paper. ---> Version 0.3.0
• Archive the release on Zenodo/figshare/etc and post the DOI here. ---> 10.5281/zenodo.10072128
• Make sure that the title and author list (including ORCIDs) in the archive match those in the JOSS paper.
• Make sure that the license listed for the archive is the same as the software license.

from joss-reviews.

@MikeSWang a couple of small corrections:

• on line 16 change from "developed by Sugiyama (Sugiyama et al., 2018, 2019)" to "developed by Sugiyama et al. (2018, 2019)"
• on line 87 either remove "thankfully" or enclose it in commas on both sides
• on line 99, remove the comma at the end of the line, after "involved"
• footnote 7, "gibibytes" and "gigabytes" should be singular: "gibibyte" and "gigabyte"

from joss-reviews.

Thanks @ivastar for the suggestions! I have made these edits and updated the paper in the repo.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

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

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.10072128 as archive

from joss-reviews.

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.10072128

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot set v0.3.0 as version

from joss-reviews.

Done! version is now v0.3.0

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

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

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot check references

from joss-reviews.

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1093/mnras/sty3249 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx2333 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.063508 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1110.3193 is OK
- 10.1007/s41114-017-0010-3 is OK
- 10.1016/s0370-1573(02)00135-7 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.023522 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx721 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083533 is OK
- 10.1086/307220 is OK
- 10.1093/pasj/58.1.93 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw2576 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.083532 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv2119 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty1063 is OK
- 10.1093/mnrasl/slv133 is OK
- 10.1103/physrevd.104.123529 is OK
- 10.1201/9780367806934 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aadae0 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw1229 is OK
- 10.1086/427087 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 is OK
- 10.1086/174036 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot recommend-accept

from joss-reviews.

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

from joss-reviews.

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1093/mnras/sty3249 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx2333 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.063508 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1110.3193 is OK
- 10.1007/s41114-017-0010-3 is OK
- 10.1016/s0370-1573(02)00135-7 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.023522 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx721 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083533 is OK
- 10.1086/307220 is OK
- 10.1093/pasj/58.1.93 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw2576 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.083532 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv2119 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty1063 is OK
- 10.1093/mnrasl/slv133 is OK
- 10.1103/physrevd.104.123529 is OK
- 10.1201/9780367806934 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aadae0 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw1229 is OK
- 10.1086/427087 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 is OK
- 10.1086/174036 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

from joss-reviews.

👋 @openjournals/aass-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#4758, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot recommend-accept

from joss-reviews.

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

from joss-reviews.

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1093/mnras/sty3249 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx2333 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.063508 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1110.3193 is OK
- 10.1007/s41114-017-0010-3 is OK
- 10.1016/s0370-1573(02)00135-7 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.023522 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx721 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083533 is OK
- 10.1086/307220 is OK
- 10.1093/pasj/58.1.93 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw2576 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.083532 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv2119 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty1063 is OK
- 10.1093/mnrasl/slv133 is OK
- 10.1103/physrevd.104.123529 is OK
- 10.1201/9780367806934 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aadae0 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw1229 is OK
- 10.1086/427087 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 is OK
- 10.1086/174036 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

from joss-reviews.

👋 @openjournals/aass-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#4761, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot accept

from joss-reviews.

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

from joss-reviews.

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Wang
  given-names: Mike Shengbo
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2652-4043"
- family-names: Beutler
  given-names: Florian
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0467-5438"
- family-names: Sugiyama
  given-names: Naonori S.
contact:
- family-names: Wang
  given-names: Mike Shengbo
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2652-4043"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10072128
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Wang
    given-names: Mike Shengbo
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2652-4043"
  - family-names: Beutler
    given-names: Florian
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0467-5438"
  - family-names: Sugiyama
    given-names: Naonori S.
  date-published: 2023-11-07
  doi: 10.21105/joss.05571
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 91
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 5571
  title: "Triumvirate: A Python/C++ package for three-point clustering
    measurements"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05571"
  volume: 8
title: "Triumvirate: A Python/C++ package for three-point clustering
  measurements"

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

from joss-reviews.

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

from joss-reviews.

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#4762
1. Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05571
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

from joss-reviews.

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05571/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05571)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05571">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05571/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05571/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05571

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

• Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate preprint

from joss-reviews.

📄 Preprint file created: Find it here in the Artifacts list 📄

from joss-reviews.