[PRE REVIEW]: Adamantine 1.0: A Thermomechanical Simulator for Additive Manufacturing about joss-reviews HOT 36 CLOSED

Sure @kyleniemeyer

from joss-reviews.

@mohd-afeef-badri - the review will start once I find another one or two reviewers. For now there is no action to take, but feel free to read through the JOSS reviewer guidelines if this is your first review: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

from joss-reviews.

Hello @lucydot,

@FelixFroelich and I are happy to review this!

Please note that Felix and I work at the same Institute and collaborate a lot. So our reviews will probably not be independent of each other.

from joss-reviews.

Hi, @Rombur thanks for considering me on the list! I am sorry I didn't answer on time @lucydot , I was on holidays.

from joss-reviews.

Given your comment above @FelixFroelich (and the fact we are in the nice position of having plenty of suitable reviewers), if you or @lukashof would like to step back then please feel free. Or you can both review, or you could review as a team (each assessing different parts). Whatever you prefer, just let me know.

We are happy to both be reviewers and will probably do this in tandem to some extent. 🙂

from joss-reviews.

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

from joss-reviews.

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1515/jnma-2023-0089 is OK
- 10.1145/3412558 is OK
- 10.1109/TPDS.2021.3097283 is OK
- 10.1137/1.9781611974546 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compfluid.2012.04.012 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-38547-6 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.8034098 is OK
- 10.1186/s40192-016-0047-2 is OK
- 10.1007/BF02667333 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Trilinos Project Website, https://trilinos.git...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Classical and Computational Solid Mechanics
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ABAQUS/Standard User’s Manual, Version 6.9

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2022.111904 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2017.05.003 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

from joss-reviews.

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.65 s (204.9 files/s, 509361.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSV                              9              0              0         307231
C++                             65           1489           1212           9687
C/C++ Header                    40           1219           2312           8521
Markdown                         4             48              0            408
CMake                           10             43             17            361
Dockerfile                       2             17             11            351
TeX                              1             19              0            161
YAML                             3              5              4             62
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           134           2840           3556         326782
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   463	Bruno Turcksin
   114	DeWitt, Stephen
    67	stvdwtt
     4	Daniel Arndt
     4	Stephen DeWitt
     3	Lance-Drane
     2	AshGannon

from joss-reviews.

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1290

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

from joss-reviews.

License info:

🟡 License found: Other (Check here for OSI approval)

from joss-reviews.

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

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot invite @lucydot as editor

Hi @lucydot, I realize this is a bit outside your primary areas, but is this something you could edit?

from joss-reviews.

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

from joss-reviews.

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

Akantu: an HPC finite-element library for contact and dynamic fracture simulations
Submitting author: @nrichart
Handling editor: @diehlpk (Active)
Reviewers: @vijaysm, @chennachaos
Similarity score: 0.7383

AMReX: a framework for block-structured adaptive mesh refinement
Submitting author: @asalmgren
Handling editor: @kyleniemeyer (Active)
Reviewers: @MatthewTurk, @RemiLehe, @cmsquared
Similarity score: 0.7236

NebulaSEM: A high-order discontinuous Galerkin spectral element code for atmospheric modeling
Submitting author: @dshawul
Handling editor: @observingClouds (Active)
Reviewers: @capitalaslash, @esclapez
Similarity score: 0.7076

MoFEM: An open source, parallel finite element library
Submitting author: @likask
Handling editor: @jedbrown (Active)
Reviewers: @tjhei, @chrisrichardson, @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman, @vijaysm, @chennachaos
Similarity score: 0.7034

FeenoX: a cloud-first finite-element(ish) computational engineering tool
Submitting author: @gtheler
Handling editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman (Active)
Reviewers: @vijaysm, @AnjaliSandip, @chennachaos
Similarity score: 0.7022

⚠️ 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.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot assign me as editor

from joss-reviews.

Assigned! @lucydot is now the editor

from joss-reviews.

@Rombur 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.

from joss-reviews.

Looking at the list, I think SoilRos, mohd-afeef-badri, and mikaem could potentially be reviewers.

from joss-reviews.

@SoilRos @mohd-afeef-badri @mikaem - Hello 👋 . Are you available to review this submission to JOSS?

from joss-reviews.

@lucydot Hello 👋. Sure, I'd be happy to review this submission. It aligns well with my areas of expertise. Looking forward to it!

from joss-reviews.

Great! - I'll add you now @mohd-afeef-badri

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot add @mohd-afeef-badri as reviewer

from joss-reviews.

@mohd-afeef-badri added to the reviewers list!

from joss-reviews.

@nrichart + @lukashof + @FelixFroelich + @ericneiva - Hello 👋 . Are you available to review this submission to JOSS?

from joss-reviews.

Hi, @lucydot,

I am also happy to review this! Thanks for the opportunity. Looking forward to it!

from joss-reviews.

That's great @ericneiva , @FelixFroelich, @lukashof - Thank you :) I will add you all now as reviewers then ask editorialbot to start the new review thread.

Given your comment above @FelixFroelich (and the fact we are in the nice position of having plenty of suitable reviewers), if you or @lukashof would like to step back then please feel free. Or you can both review, or you could review as a team (each assessing different parts). Whatever you prefer, just let me know.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot add @ericneiva as reviewer

from joss-reviews.

@ericneiva added to the reviewers list!

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot add @FelixFroelich as reviewer

from joss-reviews.

@FelixFroelich added to the reviewers list!

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot add @lukashof as reviewer

from joss-reviews.

@lukashof added to the reviewers list!

from joss-reviews.

If you haven't reviewed for JOSS before, you can find some detailed information about the review process on the documentation pages: reviewing for JOSS, review criteria, review checklist. You don't need to read this all, but it gives some context if wanted.

The key things that are different from standard journals are: i) discussion happens in a Github review thread; ii) the review is a conversation back and forth - you do not need to do you review in a single step; iii) the review is structured in that you work your way through a checklist.

We ask that reviews are completed in about 4-6 weeks. We advise you start the review early, as it is an iterative process between reviewers and authors.

I will now ask editorialbot to generate a new issue thread which is where the review will take place.

If you have any other questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Discussion on the review thread is the best place to contact me, but you can also contact me via email ([email protected]) if there is something you'd rather not be public.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot start review

from joss-reviews.

OK, I've started the review over in #7017.

from joss-reviews.

@SoilRos I'm sure there will be other opportunities!

from joss-reviews.