[REVIEW]: REvoSim v3.0.0: A fast evolutionary simulation tool with ecological processes

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @Euan-Furness (Euan Furness)
Repository: https://github.com/palaeoware/revosim
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): JOSS
Version: v3.0.1
Editor: @Bisaloo
Reviewers: @bramvandijk88, @emilydolson
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8228938

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7510ac656e74391dd2d0007e14670894"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7510ac656e74391dd2d0007e14670894/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7510ac656e74391dd2d0007e14670894/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7510ac656e74391dd2d0007e14670894)

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

@bramvandijk88 & @emilydolson, 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 @Bisaloo 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 @emilydolson

📝 Checklist for @bramvandijk88

[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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.22 s (910.1 files/s, 227521.3 lines/s)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                         files          blank        comment           code
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C++                                 54           2519           3373          12488
JavaScript                          13           2404           2487           9210
HTML                                28            439             84           4974
Qt                                   6              0              0           3213
SVG                                  1              0              0           2671
C/C++ Header                        54            423            587           1693
CSS                                  4            191             35            758
reStructuredText                    23            470            204            746
Markdown                             3            112              0            188
ProGuard                             2             33             14            159
TeX                                  1             17              0            127
Python                               2            132            340             78
XML                                  3              0              0             26
JSON                                 2              0              0             20
YAML                                 1              1              4             18
Qt Project                           1              0              0              3
Bourne Shell                         1              1              5              2
Windows Resource File                2              0              0              2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                               201           6742           7133          36376
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1582

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1098/rspb.2008.0951 may be a valid DOI for title: Trophic and individual efficiencies of size-structured communities
- 10.1101/361246 may be a valid DOI for title: Pyramids and cascades: a synthesis of food chain functioning and stability
- 10.1017/pab.2020.30 may be a valid DOI for title: Seven rules for simulations in paleobiology
- 10.1111/ecog.02480 may be a valid DOI for title: Mechanistic simulation models in macroecology and biogeography: state-of-art and prospects
- 10.2307/1930126 may be a valid DOI for title: The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology
- 10.1111/ddi.12227 may be a valid DOI for title: Habitat fragmentation and the species–area relationship: a focus on total species richness obscures the impact of habitat loss on habitat specialists
- 10.1111/gcb.16333 may be a valid DOI for title: Global warming generates predictable extinctions of warm- and cold-water marine benthic invertebrates via thermal habitat loss
- 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.06105.x may be a valid DOI for title: Variation partitioning as a tool to distinguish between niche and neutral processes
- 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.18284.x may be a valid DOI for title: The virtual ecologist approach: simulating data and observers

INVALID DOIs

- None

[Bisaloo]

👋 👋 👋 @Euan-Furness @bramvandijk88 @emilydolson this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

As a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering

@editorialbot generate my checklist

as the top of a new comment in this thread.

These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#5284 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if any of you require some more time. We can also use EditorialBot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@Bisaloo) if you have any questions/concerns.

[emilydolson]

Review checklist for @emilydolson

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/palaeoware/revosim?
• 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 (@Euan-Furness) 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?

[Bisaloo]

@editorialbot check references

The issue from #5284 (comment) should have been fixed by palaeoware/revosim#8.

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1098/rspb.2008.0951 is OK
- 10.1111/ele.13196 is OK
- 10.1017/pab.2020.30 is OK
- 10.1111/ecog.02480 is OK
- 10.1111/pala.12420 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001340 is OK
- 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0043 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001841 is OK
- 10.1126/science.1220269 is OK
- 10.2307/1930126 is OK
- 10.1111/ddi.12227 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aar5452 is OK
- 10.1111/gcb.16333 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aaj1631 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.06105.x is OK
- 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.18284.x is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- 10.1017/9771108569422 is INVALID

[bramvandijk88]

Review checklist for @bramvandijk88

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/palaeoware/revosim?
• 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 (@Euan-Furness) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete? (Yes, with reference to this comment: [PRE REVIEW]: REvoSim v3.0.0: A fast evolutionary simulation tool with ecological processes #5231 (comment))
• 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?

[bramvandijk88]

I'm having some issues installing on both Ubuntu and Windows. See palaeoware/revosim#10

[bramvandijk88]

Alright I have spent one or two hours with the software, and it seems to be functional. I think found what appears to be a minor bug with the pathogen layer not being reset, but that should be easy to fix. I also tried to assess the other newly implemented functions, but I can't be sure it actually does what the authors claim without spending hours (debugging is a full-time job :))

In any case, I have left two checkboxes unticked.

Firstly, as mentioned in the above comment, I found the installation instruction for Windows lacking. I am not a Windows person, so it could be that developers that like to use Windows (however many people that may be) are familiar with the protocol of using a QT environment with windows. However, in the steps described the final step (8) falls short. I know using C++ based software cross platform can be a pain in the neck, but if you want to have the claim your software can be installed across different operating systems, I would appreciate a little more explanation here. I also ran into an issue installing it on Ubuntu, which honestly was silly error on my side. That said, why not add the sentence "don't forget to run sudo apt-get update" and prevent the confusion altogether.

Secondly, I left the automated tests box unticked. I am not entirely sure this is necessary for this project, but it feels weird to tick the box if they are not there. I leave this up to the handling editor.

Then a small note to the authors: great job with this software. I have experimented with the earlier version, and the pathogen extension really excites me. I think a lot of biology starts making much more sense in light of pathogens/parasites, and I am looking forward to future publications with this framework. In fact, don't hesitate to suggest me as a reviewer for such future work! If the installation instructions are fixed (Windows step 8 more expanded, Linux reference to sudo apt-get update), I will tick these last boxes and I am supportive of publication.

[Bisaloo]

Thanks @bramvandijk88 & @emilydolson for your comments!

@emilydolson, is your review still in progress or are you waiting for an action from the authors at this point?

[emilydolson]

My review is in progress! I'll get it done soon - sorry for the delay.

[Bisaloo]

Hi @Euan-Furness @RussellGarwood 👋 👋, I would encourage you to already try to address the comments from the reviewers to keep the ball rolling.
There is no need to wait until reviewers are fully done with their reviews in JOSS, as we aim at having a more conversational and more flexible review process than traditional journals.

Secondly, I left the automated tests box unticked. I am not entirely sure this is necessary for this project, but it feels weird to tick the box if they are not there. I leave this up to the handling editor.

Thanks, this is a great point! I do agree a full end-to-end testing suite would be very complicated and possibly not a priority for this project. However, I do believe that having continuous integration to verify that the software can be installed on all platforms given your instructions would be a serious improvement. I will open an issue in that sense in the repo.

[RussellGarwood]

Thanks for the great comments @bramvandijk88. I just wanted to highlight I have already improved the windows instructions for build in the master branch - given the software comes with both a windows installer and a portable executable, I'm hopeful any windows users that actually chose to build it will be familiar with C++ development on Windows. As such I hope that is dealt with, but would welcome feedback to the contrary if you disagree! (I also added the sudo apt update to the Linux instructions - had the same thought).

Great spot on the pathogen layer, thanks for that - a fix should be simple and is on my to do list.

-- Secondly, I left the automated tests box unticked

Indeed, our tests are not automated - but they are present through the GUI, in case you missed this (we wanted those to be visible to users so they could check REvoSim's functioning before using!)

Thanks to drawing my attention to this process @Bisaloo - I've been away for most of the last month and had not flagged all the recent updates!

[emilydolson]

Software/documentation

This seems like a useful piece of software, and all of the functionality worked as intended! I have opened an issue suggesting a few improvements to the documentation (including adding an example, as suggested in the review criteria).

I checked the "testing" checkbox because the procedure for running tests is clearly documented and worked for me. That said, I'm also always in favor of adding automated testing where possible (it could just be a github action that automatically runs the same tests that a user could run locally). From a user perspective, if a package has automated testing, I am substantially more likely to trust it enough to use it in my research.

I haven't checked off the "performance" box yet, because (as mentioned in my comments on the documentation) I feel like I don't have a good perspective yet for how iterations in this system map onto units of time in other systems. There aren't especially strong performance claims made in the paper, but they do say the system is efficient enough to ask questions about large scale macroevolutionary processes, so I'd just like to get a rough sense for how quickly it goes through generations before checking this one off.

Paper

The paper is well-written and does a good job describing the newly added features. The only area where it is lacking is in the description of the current state of the field. I completely agree that this software fills a worthwhile niche (the combination of a full-featured GUI combined with relatively simple/efficient genomes that can be configured in a variety of ways). However, I was surprised to see the statement that "REvoSim is unusual in that it simulates evolutionary processes that occur within populations rather than just between them (Garwood et al., 2019), and is highly efficient, allowing long time spans and large population sizes on modest hardware." I'm definitely biased by the sub-field I'm in, but my impression is there are actually quite a lot of systems with these properties (although they make various tradeoffs between complexity and efficiency). I'm by no means suggesting that the authors need to refer to all of the following, but here are some examples of other systems that the authors may want to be aware of:

• Symbulation (has some parallels to the pathogen layer in REvoSim)
• SLiM
• Avida
• MABE
• Aevol

In case it's helpful, I reviewed a bunch more computational evolution platforms in this paper and am working on assembling more information on them in this wiki.

Again, I don't think all of that needs to go in the paper, but I think it would be worth adjusting the discussion of the current state of the field to make it clearer to the reader what REvoSim's niche within the broader landscape is. In my mind, it does a fantastic job of occupying the space just left of digital evolution on this continuum (which is explained in more detail in the paper I linked to):

Otherwise I'd say this is all looking very good!

[Euan-Furness]

Hi @Bisaloo

I know you suggested this before, but just to check, are you happy for us to make changes to the text of the paper on Github at this stage, to make improvements suggested by reviewers? I don't want to accidentally put people in a position of looking at lots of different versions of a document.

If this is ok, I will start making suggested changes to the paper to address the current state of the field.

[RussellGarwood]

Many thanks @emilydolson for the really useful comments - as per the above, @Euan-Furness will amend the paper as suggested, and I have noted the issue relating to documentaiton on the main repo. I'll be addressing all those issues in one go as soon as workload allows.

[Bisaloo]

If this is ok, I will start making suggested changes to the paper to address the current state of the field.

Yes, it's fine, please go ahead 👍. Feel free to use editorialbot after to regenerate the paper and post a link here.

[Euan-Furness]

@Bisaloo Correction made.

[Bisaloo]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1098/rspb.2008.0951 is OK
- 10.1111/ele.13196 is OK
- 10.1017/pab.2020.30 is OK
- 10.1186/1471-2105-14-S15-S11 is OK
- 10.1111/ecog.02480 is OK
- 10.3389/fevo.2021.750779 is OK
- 10.1111/pala.12420 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001340 is OK
- 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0043 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001841 is OK
- 10.1126/science.1220269 is OK
- 10.2307/1930126 is OK
- 10.1111/ddi.12227 is OK
- 10.1017/9781108569422 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aar5452 is OK
- 10.1111/gcb.16333 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aaj1631 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.06105.x is OK
- 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.18284.x is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[Bisaloo]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1098/rspb.2008.0951 is OK
- 10.1111/ele.13196 is OK
- 10.1017/pab.2020.30 is OK
- 10.1186/1471-2105-14-S15-S11 is OK
- 10.1111/ecog.02480 is OK
- 10.3389/fevo.2021.750779 is OK
- 10.1111/pala.12420 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001340 is OK
- 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0043 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001841 is OK
- 10.1126/science.1220269 is OK
- 10.2307/1930126 is OK
- 10.1111/ddi.12227 is OK
- 10.1017/9781108569422 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aar5452 is OK
- 10.1111/gcb.16333 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aaj1631 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.06105.x is OK
- 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.18284.x is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👋 @openjournals/bcm-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#4518, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[RussellGarwood]

I assume you don't need any further action from us @Bisaloo but if you do just shout, Thanks so much for your stewardship throughout - this has been a really positive experience! Thanks also @emilydolson and @bramvandijk88 for your reviews - much appreciated

[Euan-Furness]

Yes, thanks for all the work you've put in @Bisaloo, @emilydolson, @bramvandijk88.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@Euan-Furness I am the AEiC on this track and here to process final steps. I have checked your repository, this review, the archive link, and the paper, and most seems in order. I have only the following minor point which requires your attention:

• In your affiliations please spell out UK as United Kingdom

[Euan-Furness]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman UK now United Kingdom in the affiliations. Thanks for your work on this.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@Euan-Furness thanks for making that fix in the affiliations. One more point remains:

• I have just noticed that your software license (GPL-3.0 license ) actually does not match the ZENODO archive listed license (GNU Affero General Public License v3.0). Can you please edit this?

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@Euan-Furness 👋

[Euan-Furness]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Apologies for the slow reply, I am not currently in the office. I believe this is now fixed.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@Euan-Furness thanks. All looks good to proceed now.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot accept

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

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:

CITATION.cff

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Furness
  given-names: Euan N.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7917-2304"
- family-names: Garwood
  given-names: Russell J.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2803-9471"
- family-names: Sutton
  given-names: Mark D.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7137-7572"
contact:
- family-names: Furness
  given-names: Euan N.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7917-2304"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8228938
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Furness
    given-names: Euan N.
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7917-2304"
  - family-names: Garwood
    given-names: Russell J.
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2803-9471"
  - family-names: Sutton
    given-names: Mark D.
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7137-7572"
  date-published: 2023-09-07
  doi: 10.21105/joss.05284
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 89
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 5284
  title: "REvoSim v3: A fast evolutionary simulation tool with
    ecological processes"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05284"
  volume: 8
title: "REvoSim v3: A fast evolutionary simulation tool with ecological
  processes"

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.

[editorialbot]

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

[editorialbot]

🚨🚨🚨 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 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.05284 joss-papers#4535
1. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05284
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...

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@Euan-Furness congratulations on this paper in JOSS!

Thanks for editing @Bisaloo

And a special thanks to the reviewers: @bramvandijk88, @emilydolson

[editorialbot]

🎉🎉🎉 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.05284/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05284)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05284">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05284/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05284/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05284

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