[REVIEW]: GASTLI: A Python package for coupled interior–atmosphere modelling of volatile-rich planets

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @lorenaacuna (Lorena Acuña)
Repository: https://github.com/lorenaacuna/GASTLI
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main
Version: v0.9
Editor: @JBorrow
Reviewers: @ivalaginja, @MartianColonist
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c7f7fcd6e5c8c909cf237eb5aff9d0c4"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c7f7fcd6e5c8c909cf237eb5aff9d0c4/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c7f7fcd6e5c8c909cf237eb5aff9d0c4/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c7f7fcd6e5c8c909cf237eb5aff9d0c4)

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

@ivalaginja & @MartianColonist, 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 @JBorrow 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 @ivalaginja

📝 Checklist for @MartianColonist

[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

- 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 is OK
- 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 is OK
- 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stac1133 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stab2250 is OK
- 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/180 is OK
- 10.3390/atmos10110664 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2402.19466 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201833873 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/1 is OK
- 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/64 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/105 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/47 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201629800 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8205/831/2/L16 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aa965a is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9530 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/abfa99 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac66e2 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/202039885 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/202142374 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/202245736 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/202243207 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201833963 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/abfc48 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2302.07902 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/202038367 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2406.10032 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/80 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Structure interne et minéralogie des exoplanètes t...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Sesame: the Los Alamos National Laboratory equatio...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.05 s (1078.0 files/s, 287482.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fortran 95                      10           1951           1731           3335
Python                          22            779           1038           1627
TeX                              1             36              0            557
reStructuredText                 8            361           1175            207
Meson                            1             43             18            153
Fortran 90                       2             43             18             79
Markdown                         1             18              0             46
YAML                             2              4              4             29
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
TOML                             1              2              0             25
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            50           3249           3992           6093
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   178	lorenaacuna

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1383

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

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

[ivalaginja]

Review checklist for @ivalaginja

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/lorenaacuna/GASTLI?
• 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 (@lorenaacuna) 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?

[MartianColonist]

Review checklist for @MartianColonist

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/lorenaacuna/GASTLI?
• 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 (@lorenaacuna) 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?

[MartianColonist]

@lorenaacuna, I'm looking forward to reviewing your JOSS manuscript and Python package!

One quick thing: the embedded images aren't showing in the notebooks in the docs (probably because they are PDFs). Can you try converting them to pngs to see if they'll render that way?