[PRE REVIEW]: Foam: A Python package for forward asteroseismic modelling of gravity modes

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @MichielsenM (Mathias Michielsen)
Repository: https://github.com/MichielsenM/FOAM
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 1.0.0
Editor: @warrickball
Reviewers: @AnkitBarik, @ashleychontos
Managing EiC: Dan Foreman-Mackey

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7129cf30a4cc1b8ded5d1493bff34689"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7129cf30a4cc1b8ded5d1493bff34689/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7129cf30a4cc1b8ded5d1493bff34689/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7129cf30a4cc1b8ded5d1493bff34689)

Author instructions

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

@MichielsenM 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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.04 s (1068.4 files/s, 100190.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          26            407           1097           1672
Markdown                         9            117              0            589
HTML                             4             18              6            105
YAML                             3              8             13             76
TeX                              1              5              0             74
TOML                             1              3              0             20
Sass                             1              2              1              7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            45            560           1117           2543
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1051/0004-6361/202039926 is OK
- 10.3390/galaxies11020056 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.93.015001 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 482

[editorialbot]

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

[dfm]

@MichielsenM — Thanks for your submission! All the suitable JOSS editors are currently working at capacity so I'm going to "waitlist" this review until an editor with the relevant expertise is available to take it on. Thanks for your patience!

[warrickball]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @warrickball is now the editor

[warrickball]

Hi @MichielsenM! I'll be handling this submission as editor and will start looking for reviewers. In the meantime, I'd suggest having a look at JOSS's review criteria and review checklist in anticipation of what the reviewers will be looking for.

As it is, my first comment is that the paper is probably too high level, and doesn't give me a good idea of what the code does. At the moment it seems to rely on MESA and GYRE, so you should cite them.

The statement of need is also very scientific, rather than reviewing what software exists, or what it is about comparing models to data that's better than, say, something someone might write for themselves in a few hundred lines of Python. It's fair enough to say that there's simply no software that does this in a way that overcomes some quirk of g-mode asteroseismology. E.g. for solar-like oscillations we have AIMS or BASTA. Why can't they be repurposed for g-mode asteroseismology? I'm not claiming that they can but it's the sort of question JOSS papers should answer through the statement of need.

[warrickball]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

SkyPy: A package for modelling the Universe
Reviewers: @cescalara, @rmorgan10
Similarity score: 0.8202

tomso: TOols for Models of Stars and their Oscillations
Reviewers: @danhey, @astrobel
Similarity score: 0.8159

Wakeflow: A Python package for semi-analytic models of planetary wakes
Reviewers: @richteague, @andizq
Similarity score: 0.8126

Telewavesim: Python software for teleseismic body wave modeling
Reviewers: @andreww, @seisman, @brmather
Similarity score: 0.8105

Gala: A Python package for galactic dynamics
Reviewers: @crawfordsm
Similarity score: 0.8092

⚠️ 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 before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[editorialbot]

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

[warrickball]

@editorialbot add @AnkitBarik to reviewers

[editorialbot]

@AnkitBarik added to the reviewers list!

[warrickball]

@editorialbot add @ashleychontos to reviewers

[editorialbot]

@ashleychontos added to the reviewers list!

[MichielsenM]

Hi @warrickball, thanks for pointing this out. I tried to write it very high level, but maybe I overdid it a bit.
The current setup indeed relies on MESA, but that's only in the initial step where it reads in theoretical models. If this step is adjusted to read in other file formats, the rest should in principle work with models from codes other than MESA. I had put this somewhere in the documentation, but maybe you're right and I should mention/cite this in the paper itself as well. I'll adjust the text accordingly.

[MichielsenM]

I've moved the scientific part to an introduction section, and added a new statement of need, which I hope is more in line with what that section should contain. Also, would an "overview" section where I describe the steps in the workflow be a good approach to make it less high level?

[warrickball]

Also, would an "overview" section where I describe the steps in the workflow be a good approach to make it less high level?

Yes, that would be good. As it is, I don't think the paper describes what the code actually does, and a few lines on that would help.

Don't put too much weight on my remarks yet because the reviewers may have comments that overlap or lead to further changes. I've actually managed to find two reviewers surprisingly quickly. In a moment I'll start the actual review, where any conversations can continue.

[warrickball]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #5884.