[PRE REVIEW]: TrixiParticles.jl: Particle-based multiphysics simulation in Julia

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @LasNikas (Niklas Neher)
Repository: https://github.com/trixi-framework/TrixiParticles.jl
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper-2024-joss
Version: v0.2
Editor: @HaoZeke
Reviewers: @luraess, @giordano, @williamfgc
Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/edd26999a39cb49bbee7f75c81f9f789"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/edd26999a39cb49bbee7f75c81f9f789/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/edd26999a39cb49bbee7f75c81f9f789/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/edd26999a39cb49bbee7f75c81f9f789)

Author instructions

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

@LasNikas 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.

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]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.cpc.2009.11.002 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compfluid.2018.11.023 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2013.01.043 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2021.103312 is OK
- 10.1103/physreve.87.013309 is OK
- 10.1002/fld.1971 is OK
- 10.1088/0034-4885/68/8/r01 is OK
- 10.1002/0470091355.ecm006.pub2 is OK
- 10.1680/geot.1979.29.1.47 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/181.3.375 is OK
- 10.1007/3-540-34596-5_15 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3996439 is OK
- 10.1007/s40571-021-00404-2 is OK
- 10.1145/3460773 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2021.108066 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty3413 is OK
- 10.1145/2508363.2508395 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-024-57177-w is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: SPlisHSPlasH Library

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.23 s (907.9 files/s, 228239.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JSON                            12              0              0          25271
Julia                          143           3903           4457          13718
CSV                              6              0              0           2957
Markdown                        36            371              0           1550
TeX                              2             19              0            211
Lisp                             1             23              0            111
TOML                             5              8              5             95
YAML                             5              2              5             87
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           210           4326           4467          44000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   170	Erik Faulhaber
    44	Sven Berger
    36	erik.faulhaber
    34	Niklas Neher
    31	LasNikas
    13	dependabot[bot]
    11	Hendrik Ranocha
     9	github-actions[bot]
     3	Dr. Sven Berger
     3	Michael Schlottke-Lakemper

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1428

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

Kinetic.jl: A portable finite volume toolbox for scientific and neural computing
Submitting author: @vavrines
Handling editor: @diehlpk (Active)
Reviewers: @rdeits, @jarvist
Similarity score: 0.7145

OpenCMP: An Open-Source Computational Multiphysics Package
Submitting author: @nasserma
Handling editor: @lucydot (Active)
Reviewers: @bonh, @WilkAndy
Similarity score: 0.7117

SpeedyWeather.jl: Reinventing atmospheric general circulation models towards interactivity and extensibility
Submitting author: @milankl
Handling editor: @kthyng (Active)
Reviewers: @vavrines, @natgeo-wong, @slayoo
Similarity score: 0.7032

PyStokes: phoresis and Stokesian hydrodynamics in Python
Submitting author: @rajeshrinet
Handling editor: @harpolea (Retired)
Reviewers: @fcooper8472, @khinsen
Similarity score: 0.7021

Stokesian Dynamics in Python
Submitting author: @Pecnut
Handling editor: @philipcardiff (Active)
Reviewers: @rajeshrinet, @szwiep
Similarity score: 0.6997

⚠️ 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.

[danielskatz]

👋 @LasNikas - thanks for your submission. I'll look for an editor for it.

[danielskatz]

👋 @jbytecode - I know you're at your editing limit, but I wanted to see if you were interested in editing this submission. If not, that's fine.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot invite @jbytecode as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[jbytecode]

@danielskatz - Thank you for inviting me. I have been investigating the repository and the manuscript, indeed it seems to be a good submission. I am always happy editing Julia submissions, however, the subject is a little bit out of my experiences. It would be better to invite someone works on Physics, I think. By the way, if you fail to find someone available and you believe I can edit this, please ping me again, I will try to help and do my best anyway.

[danielskatz]

@HaoZeke - Here is a second possible submission for you to consider editing. If you can take one of the two, I would appreciate it. (Both would also be great, of course 🙂)

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot invite @HaoZeke as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[HaoZeke]

@editorialbot assign @HaoZeke as editor

Thanks for the invite @danielskatz, I'm happy to accept

@LasNikas, do you have any suggestions from the reviewer database? I will start sending out invitations by the end of this week.

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @HaoZeke is now the editor

[HaoZeke]

@rajeshrinet would you be available / willing to review this? If not, could you suggest other potential reviewers?

[HaoZeke]

hi @satishskamath @maxim-masterov 👋 would you be interested in and available to review this JOSS submission? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

If not, could you recommend any potential reviewers?

[LasNikas]

Thank you!
We suggest the following reviewers on account of their expertise with using Julia for high-performance computing and simulations

• Ludovic Räss (luraess)
• Mosè Giordano (giordano)
• William F Godoy (williamfgc)

[HaoZeke]

hi @luraess @giordano @williamfgc 👋 would you be interested in and available to review this JOSS submission? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

If not, could you recommend any potential reviewers?

[luraess]

Hi @HaoZeke , I would be able to review this paper. However, I am on holiday the coming 3 weeks and will thus not be able to give any feedback before mid to end August. If that's OK, then count me in.

[williamfgc]

@HaoZeke likewise, the rest of the month is going to be difficult for me. I can start next month. Also, I want to disclose a potential conflict since we collaborate actively with one of the authors (Michael) on Julia venues and a pub.

[giordano]

I will also be busy until mid-September between holidays and conference-going (unless I carve some time out of my holidays, but don't count too much on this 🙂), otherwise I'm happy to do this.

As William said, I also personally know some of the authors (Erik and Michael), but I'm not involved in the subject of the paper. I know that knowing authors hasn't been a reason for rejecting JOSS reviewers in the past (I don't know if policies have changed since), but I'm pointing this out for transparency.

[LasNikas]

Hi @HaoZeke 👋 ,
Do the suggested reviewers match with your expectations?
If not, I can recommend additional reviewers.

[HaoZeke]

Sorry for being slow on the uptake @LasNikas.

Thanks for the transparency about the potential conflicts, @williamfgc and @giordano. I think they don't warrant an exclusion from the review in this case. I think the timelines would also be reasonable (within our 6 week guideline) so I'll assign y'all (@williamfgc, @giordano, @luraess) as reviewers.

[HaoZeke]

@editorialbot add @luraess as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@luraess added to the reviewers list!

[HaoZeke]

@editorialbot add @giordano as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@giordano added to the reviewers list!

[HaoZeke]

@editorialbot add @williamfgc as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@williamfgc added to the reviewers list!

[HaoZeke]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #7044.