[PRE REVIEW]: NuclearToolkit.jl: A Julia package for nuclear structure calculations

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @SotaYoshida (Sota Yoshida) Repository: https://github.com/SotaYoshida/NuclearToolkit.jl Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): josspaper Version: v0.1.0 Editor: @rkurchin Reviewers: @mdavezac, @villaa Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/20cd6c8238e26c1b32a613e982cd8350"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/20cd6c8238e26c1b32a613e982cd8350/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/20cd6c8238e26c1b32a613e982cd8350/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/20cd6c8238e26c1b32a613e982cd8350)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @SotaYoshida. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@SotaYoshida if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.31 s (162.2 files/s, 78984.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                           34            810            707          22574
TeX                              1             10              0            219
Markdown                         8             54              0            198
TOML                             5             35              2            133
YAML                             3              0              2             84
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            51            909            711          23208
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 448

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1103/RevModPhys.77.427 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.92.015002 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101917-021120 is OK
- 10.1016/j.physrep.2011.02.001 is OK
- 10.1088/0031-8949/91/8/083007 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1773 is OK
- 10.3389/fphy.2020.00098 is OK
- 10.1140/epja/i2003-10096-0 is OK
- 10.1093/ptep/ptac057 is OK
- 10.1017/CBO9780511596834 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1016/S0146-6410(01)00159-4 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2013.07.022 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nds.2014.07.022 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2019.06.011 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[editorialbot]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[danielskatz]

@SotaYoshida - thanks for your submission. Due to a current shortage of editors (that we are working to resolve), I'm going to put it on our waiting list until an appropriate editor is available.

While we wait, you could work on the invalid DOIs that editorialbot suggests. Please feel free to make changes to your .bib file, then use the command @editorialbot check references to check again, and the command @editorialbot generate pdf when the references are right to make a new PDF. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

[SotaYoshida]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- h10.1016/S0146-6410(01)00159-4 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.77.427 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.92.015002 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101917-021120 is OK
- 10.1016/j.physrep.2011.02.001 is OK
- 10.1088/0031-8949/91/8/083007 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1773 is OK
- 10.3389/fphy.2020.00098 is OK
- 10.1140/epja/i2003-10096-0 is OK
- 10.1093/ptep/ptac057 is OK
- 10.1017/CBO9780511596834 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2013.07.022 is OK
- 10.1016/j.nds.2014.07.022 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2019.06.011 is INVALID because of 'doi.org/' prefix

[SotaYoshida]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- h10.1016/S0146-6410(01)00159-4 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.77.427 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.92.015002 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101917-021120 is OK
- 10.1016/j.physrep.2011.02.001 is OK
- 10.1088/0031-8949/91/8/083007 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1773 is OK
- 10.3389/fphy.2020.00098 is OK
- 10.1140/epja/i2003-10096-0 is OK
- 10.1093/ptep/ptac057 is OK
- 10.1017/CBO9780511596834 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2013.07.022 is OK
- 10.1016/j.nds.2014.07.022 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2019.06.011 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[SotaYoshida]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[SotaYoshida]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[SotaYoshida]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[SotaYoshida]

@danielskatz Thank you for your kind support.

Due to a current shortage of editors (that we are working to resolve), I'm going to put it on our waiting list until an appropriate editor is available.

No problem. I look forward to hearing from you.

[rkurchin]

@danielskatz this is slightly out of my area (I do electronic structure stuff, but don't really deal with nuclear structure), but given I know we're short on editors with Julia expertise, I could take it as I'm about to have another one accepted.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot assign @rkurchin as editor

Thanks very much!

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @rkurchin is now the editor

[rkurchin]

👋 @Datseris, @mdavezac, @goerz, would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[mdavezac]

I would be happy to, though someone with experience in nuclear structure might be a better fit (my expertise, if any, is also with electronic structure).

[Datseris]

Hello, unfortunately I am completely overwhelmed and out of bandwidth with other projects, so I have to politely decline here. I wish best of luck to the submitting author!

[rkurchin]

No problem, George, thanks for the quick reply!

@mdavezac, our list is a bit short (read: completely lacking AFAICT) on reviewers with nuclear structure expertise who are also Julia users, so I might just invite one or two folks who know nuclear structure but don't list Julia as a language and hope we can get some complementarity with folks like yourself who use Julia and certainly at least know quantum mechanics. Hopefully that sounds okay to you, and thanks for your willingness!

[rkurchin]

👋 @munkm and/or @villaa, would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

I recognize neither of you lists Julia as a language, but we're somewhat short on folks with nuclear structure expertise to review this, see discussion in prior comments...

[villaa]

@rkurchin I agree to review this submission.

[rkurchin]

@editorialbot add @mdavezac as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@mdavezac added to the reviewers list!

[rkurchin]

@editorialbot add @villaa as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@villaa added to the reviewers list!