joss-reviews
joss-reviews copied to clipboard
openjournals
[REVIEW]: RTMsim - A Julia module for filling simulations in Resin Transfer Moulding with the Finite Area Method
Submitting author: @obertscheiderfhwn (Christof Obertscheider) Repository: https://github.com/obertscheiderfhwn/RTMsim Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.0.1 Editor: @Fei-Tao Reviewers: @duhd1993, @bbrelje Archive: Pending
Status
Status badge code:
HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ac97b5f0bc886be23981c56fe9673ca2"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ac97b5f0bc886be23981c56fe9673ca2/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ac97b5f0bc886be23981c56fe9673ca2)
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
@duhd1993 & @bbrelje, 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 @Fei-Tao 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
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
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.04 s (190.5 files/s, 88009.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia 2 149 252 2369
Markdown 2 88 0 265
TeX 1 14 0 73
YAML 1 1 4 18
DOS Batch 1 0 0 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 7 252 256 2726
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1177/0021998318780209 is OK
- 10.1002/pc.23474 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compfluid.2011.11.003 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- Errored finding suggestions for "RTM-Worx Documentation, Overview, User Manual and ...", please try later
INVALID DOIs
- None
:wave: @duhd1993, @bbrelje, @Fei-Tao – how are we getting along here? It looks like @duhd1993 @bbrelje are both yet to start their reviews?
Hi @bbrelje, @ @duhd1993, please feel free to let us know if you have any issues or need any help to start the review. Thanks again for agreeing to review this submission.
Review checklist for @duhd1993
Conflict of interest
- [x] 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
- [x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.
General checks
- [x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/obertscheiderfhwn/RTMsim?
- [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
- [x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@obertscheiderfhwn) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
- [x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
- [x] 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.
- [x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
- [x] 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
- [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
- [x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
- [x] 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
- [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
- [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
- [x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
- [x] 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?
- [x] 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
- [x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
- [x] 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?
- [x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
- [x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
- [x] 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?
Hi @bbrelje, @ @duhd1993, please feel free to let us know if you have any issues or need any help to start the review. Thanks again for agreeing to review this submission.
@Fei-Tao, please let me know if you need some contribution from my side to continue with the review process? I'm happy to help.
Hi @obertscheiderfhwn, we did not receive any response from bbrelji. It seems bbrelji is not available. Do you have anyone in mind that could review this submission? We need the comments from two reviewers to consider publishing a paper.
@duhd1993 Would you please continue your review when you are available? Thanks for your time.
Hi @obertscheiderfhwn, we did not receive any response from bbrelji. It seems bbrelji is not available. Do you have anyone in mind that could review this submission? We need the comments from two reviewers to consider publishing a paper.
@duhd1993 Would you please continue your review when you are available? Thanks for your time.
I have two colleagues in mind. From the first I know that he is on GitHub (https://github.com/s1st). One of his students worked with an initial version of the RTMsim solver and from his work he knows RTM mould filling simulations. The second one is a more application related reviewer (https://www.ivw.uni-kl.de/de/ueber-uns/organisation/lebenslaeufe/lebenslauf-miro-duhovic).
@obertscheiderfhwn The second recommended reviewer seems fitter for this submission. But I do not find his GitHub handle. Do you have the GitHub handle of this professor? Thanks for your time.
@Fei-Tao, unfortuately I was not able to find somebody from the RTM filling simulations community on GitHub. The closest was the first suggestion. Alternatively, one could search on GitHub more generally, for example "laminates" or "classical laminate theory". One finding was https://github.com/AndiMb, the developer of https://tu-dresden.de/ing/maschinenwesen/ilr/lft/elamx2/elamx
Hi @AndiMb would you be available to review this submission? Feel free to unsubscribe from this issue if you are not interested. Thank you for your time!
@Fei-Tao, I looked at the list of people who have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission. I reviewed the entries with ID >= 2000 and identified the following possible reviewers: https://github.com/jeremylt https://github.com/vipinagrawal25 https://github.com/Zitzeronion https://github.com/mrbuche They do not fit completely, but seem to be the best matches.
Hi @jeremylt, @vipinagrawal25, @Zitzeronion, @mrbuche if you'd like to review this submission, please comment here! Feel free to unsubscribe from this issue if you are not interested. Thanks for your time.
Hi @mrbuche, thanks for your interest. JOSS does not enforce a hard deadline for reviewing. But it would be great if you could complete the review in a month.
Hi @obertscheiderfhwn and @Fei-Tao 👋
Thanks for considering me as a reviewer. It is correct that the project is not exactly within my area of expertise (CFD with OpenFoam and LBM), but I think I can do a review. In the paper OpenFoam is mentioned as one possible solution to the problem I think. Let me know if both of you think I'm qualified @Fei-Tao and @obertscheiderfhwn. I have to say though that there would be a lot of suggestion 👀 to improve the repository from my side if I should review the project.
Hi @obertscheiderfhwn and @Fei-Tao 👋
Thanks for considering me as a reviewer. It is correct that the project is not exactly within my area of expertise (CFD with OpenFoam and LBM), but I think I can do a review. In the paper OpenFoam is mentioned as one possible solution to the problem I think. Let me know if both of you think I'm qualified @Fei-Tao and @obertscheiderfhwn. I have to say though that there would be a lot of suggestion 👀 to improve the repository from my side if I should review the project.
@Zitzeronion, thanks for you reply. Previously, I used OpenFOAM for my filling simulations. Now I'm using the Julia code which is under review here. At the end of the day @Fei-Tao has to nominate the reviewers. Although I'm curious how to improve the repository, don't forget that I'm no software engineer, I'm developing software for engineering applications.
I'd be happy to review this @Fei-Tao if you'll have me. I can help a lot with GitHub/CI/etc. stuff too. Maybe we can get this on the Julia registry as well, so it's a cinch to install.
@Zitzeronion, thanks for you reply. Previously, I used OpenFOAM for my filling simulations. Now I'm using the Julia code which is under review here. At the end of the day @Fei-Tao has to nominate the reviewers. Although I'm curious how to improve the repository, don't forget that I'm no software engineer, I'm developing software for engineering applications.
I'm happy to help, let me know @Fei-Tao if I should review the project 😃
Hi @Zitzeronion, @mrbuche, JOSS encourages reviews from various perspectives. Thanks a lot for your interest in reviewing this submission. I will add you to the reviewer list. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:
@editorialbot commands