[PRE REVIEW]: CoSApp: a Python library to create, simulate and design complex systems

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @elac-safran (Étienne Lac)
Repository: https://gitlab.com/cosapp/cosapp
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-article
Version: v0.15.3
Editor: @HaoZeke
Reviewers: @jbussemaker, @chenxinye
Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8621ea617b053ca80846478d4bde45ce"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8621ea617b053ca80846478d4bde45ce/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8621ea617b053ca80846478d4bde45ce/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8621ea617b053ca80846478d4bde45ce)

Author instructions

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

@elac-safran 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=0.74 s (611.4 files/s, 151487.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                         283          12380          11854          50856
SVG                             40              3              3           8110
JavaScript                      19            710            352           4585
CSS                             14            641             37           3966
Jupyter Notebook                33              0           8942           3770
JSON                            21              1              0           1138
Markdown                        11            398              0            963
HTML                             6             81              4            674
reStructuredText                13            210            508            308
YAML                             5             41             45            223
DOS Batch                        1             29              1            213
INI                              1             29              0            201
make                             1             28              6            143
TeX                              1              2              0             28
C#                               1              0              0             10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           450          14553          21752          75188
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/s00158-019-02211-z is OK
- 10.4173/mic.2020.4.1 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.2514/6.2018-0657 may be a valid DOI for title: GEMS: A Python Library for Automation of Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Process Generation

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1637

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

PySD: System Dynamics Modeling in Python
Submitting author: @rogersamso
Handling editor: @pdebuyl (Active)
Reviewers: @blsqr, @sixpearls
Similarity score: 0.8199

SimuPy: A Python framework for modeling and simulating dynamical systems
Submitting author: @sixpearls
Handling editor: @cMadan (Active)
Reviewers: @demotu
Similarity score: 0.8188

cosasi: Graph Diffusion Source Inference in Python
Submitting author: @lucasmccabe
Handling editor: @danielskatz (Active)
Reviewers: @sara-02, @zoometh
Similarity score: 0.8158

AgentPy: A package for agent-based modeling in Python
Submitting author: @JoelForamitti
Handling editor: @sbenthall (Active)
Reviewers: @jamesdamillington, @martibosch
Similarity score: 0.8147

besos: Building and Energy Simulation, Optimization and Surrogate Modelling
Submitting author: @TheoChristiaanse
Handling editor: @sjpfenninger (Retired)
Reviewers: @fneum, @willu47
Similarity score: 0.8146

⚠️ 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]

@elac-safran - thanks for your submission.

You need to add a References heading to the end of the paper, before the built references appear - please see the example paper.

Could you work on the possibly missing DOI that editorialbot suggests, but note that it may be incorrect?

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.

I'll work on finding an editor for the submission.

[danielskatz]

👋 @HaoZeke - would you be able to edit this submission for JOSS?

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot invite @HaoZeke as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[elac-safran]

@elac-safran - thanks for your submission.

You need to add a References heading to the end of the paper, before the built references appear - please see the example paper.

Could you work on the possibly missing DOI that editorialbot suggests, but note that it may be incorrect?

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.

I'll work on finding an editor for the submission.

Hello @danielskatz

Thank you for the note. I was really hoping everything was in order; I apologize for the missing section.

How should I proceed? Should I update the article branch in my repo?

[danielskatz]

Yes, I gave instructions (see "Please feel ...") above, but I guess I didn't explicitly say that you can change your .md file too.

[elac-safran]

Done. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

The DOI suggested by the bot was correct.

[elac-safran]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/s00158-019-02211-z is OK
- 10.2514/6.2018-0657 is OK
- 10.4173/mic.2020.4.1 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[elac-safran]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

PySD: System Dynamics Modeling in Python
Submitting author: @rogersamso
Handling editor: @pdebuyl (Active)
Reviewers: @blsqr, @sixpearls
Similarity score: 0.8199

SimuPy: A Python framework for modeling and simulating dynamical systems
Submitting author: @sixpearls
Handling editor: @cMadan (Active)
Reviewers: @demotu
Similarity score: 0.8188

cosasi: Graph Diffusion Source Inference in Python
Submitting author: @lucasmccabe
Handling editor: @danielskatz (Active)
Reviewers: @sara-02, @zoometh
Similarity score: 0.8158

AgentPy: A package for agent-based modeling in Python
Submitting author: @JoelForamitti
Handling editor: @sbenthall (Active)
Reviewers: @jamesdamillington, @martibosch
Similarity score: 0.8147

besos: Building and Energy Simulation, Optimization and Surrogate Modelling
Submitting author: @TheoChristiaanse
Handling editor: @sjpfenninger (Retired)
Reviewers: @fneum, @willu47
Similarity score: 0.8146

⚠️ 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.

[HaoZeke]

👋 @HaoZeke - would you be able to edit this submission for JOSS?

Thanks @danielskatz, I will be able and willing to edit the submission.

@editorialbot assign @HaoZeke as editor

[HaoZeke]

@editorialbot assign me editor

[editorialbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

[HaoZeke]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @HaoZeke, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Add to this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot add @username as reviewer

# Remove from this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot remove @username from reviewers

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Assign a user as the editor of this submission
@editorialbot assign @username as editor

# Remove the editor assigned to this submission
@editorialbot remove editor

# Remind an author, a reviewer or the editor to return to a review after a 
# certain period of time (supported units days and weeks)
@editorialbot remind @reviewer in 2 weeks

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for version
@editorialbot set v1.0.0 as version

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Set a value for repository
@editorialbot set https://github.com/organization/repo as repository

# Set a value for the archive DOI
@editorialbot set set 10.5281/zenodo.6861996 as archive

# Mention the EiCs for the correct track
@editorialbot ping track-eic

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Recommends the submission for acceptance
@editorialbot recommend-accept

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Flag submission with questionable scope
@editorialbot query scope

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

# Creates a post-review checklist with editor and authors tasks
@editorialbot create post-review checklist

# Open the review issue
@editorialbot start review

[HaoZeke]

@editorialbot assign @HaoZeke as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @HaoZeke is now the editor

[HaoZeke]

👋 @elac-safran I will facilitate the review of your paper/software as the editor. The first step will be to find reviewers, so I will start contacting potential reviewers over the weekend. If you have any suggestions for potential reviewers, then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @).

[HaoZeke]

@editorialbot remind @HaoZeke in 4 days

[editorialbot]

Reminder set for @HaoZeke in 4 days

[elac-safran]

👋 @elac-safran I will facilitate the review of your paper/software as the editor. The first step will be to find reviewers, so I will start contacting potential reviewers over the weekend. If you have any suggestions for potential reviewers, then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @).

Hello @HaoZeke. Thank you for managing the review process. I cannot think of any reviewer right now; I will give it a thought and get back to you if any name comes up.

[danielskatz]

@elac-safran (and also as guidance for @HaoZeke in the future) - typically, we ask authors to make some suggestions for reviewers. One way to do this is to search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission, and then if you have any suggestions, to please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). Of course, you might know of other potential reviewers, such as people involved in upstream or downstream software packages that you use or that use your package, or users of your software who have previously provided feedback (but of course who are not authors of your submission, as that would be a conflict.) The similar papers listed above might also have reviewers who would be suitable for this submission as well.

[elac-safran]

The lists you indicated were very helpful, thank you @danielskatz.

I would suggest:

• jbussemaker
• enekomartinmartinez
• sixpearls
• jofmi
• SergeyYakubov
• anilbey
• chenxinye

[HaoZeke]

Thanks @elac-safran

hi @jbussemaker @sixpearls @chenxinye 👋 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: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

If not, could you recommend any potential reviewers?

[jbussemaker]

@HaoZeke yes I'd gladly be a reviewer!

[HaoZeke]

@editorialbot add @jbussemaker as reviewer

Thanks for the quick and affirmative response 🥳

[editorialbot]

@jbussemaker added to the reviewers list!

[chenxinye]

Thanks @elac-safran

hi @jbussemaker @sixpearls @chenxinye 👋 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: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

If not, could you recommend any potential reviewers?

I am okay with the review!

Thanks for invitation

[HaoZeke]

@editorialbot add @chenxinye as reviewer

Thanks for the quick and affirmative response 🥳

[editorialbot]

@chenxinye added to the reviewers list!

[editorialbot]

👋 @HaoZeke, please take a look at the state of the submission (this is an automated reminder).

[HaoZeke]

@editorialbot start review

@sixpearls since we have 2 reviewers I'm starting the review but if the submission is of particular interest we can always have 3 reviewers too :)

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6292.