[REVIEW]: planetMagFields: A Python package for analyzing and plotting planetary magnetic field data #6677

editorialbot · 2024-04-24T13:19:05Z

Submitting author: @AnkitBarik (Ankit Barik)
Repository: https://github.com/AnkitBarik/planetMagFields
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 1.4.3
Editor: @dfm
Reviewers: @athulpg007, @kjg136
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.4690524

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/cba7fd0934d76b39ec197f5cdd12298b"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/cba7fd0934d76b39ec197f5cdd12298b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/cba7fd0934d76b39ec197f5cdd12298b/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/cba7fd0934d76b39ec197f5cdd12298b)

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

@athulpg007 & @kjg136, 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 @dfm 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

📝 Checklist for @kjg136

📝 Checklist for @athulpg007

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

editorialbot · 2024-04-24T13:19:09Z

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

editorialbot · 2024-04-24T13:19:31Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1029/2012JE004159 is OK
- 10.1029/2018JE005835 is OK
- 10.1029/2021JE007055 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-018-0468-5 is OK
- 10.1002/2018GL077312 is OK
- 10.1029/97JA03726 is OK
- 10.1029/JA092iA13p15329 is OK
- 10.1029/91JA01165 is OK
- 10.1006/icar.2002.6834 is OK
- 10.1186/s40623-020-01288-x is OK
- 10.1126/science.aat5434 is OK
- 10.1016/j.pepi.2011.05.013 is OK
- 10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.31 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-fluid-122109-160727 is OK
- 10.1201/b12985 is OK
- 10.1002/ggge.20071 is OK
- 10.2151/jmsj.2018-019 is OK
- 10.1007/s11214-023-00961-3 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10602418 is OK
- 10.1186/s40623-020-01252-9 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10598528 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4080294 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: The ParaView Guide: A Parallel Visualization Appli...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Cartopy: a cartographic python library with a Matp...

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2017.07.001 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2009.04.008 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2019.113541 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-415845-0.00006-2 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012387582-2/50038-1 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

editorialbot · 2024-04-24T13:19:41Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.03 s (1217.4 files/s, 143891.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          17            459            741           1095
TeX                              1             42              2            433
Markdown                         2            104              0            235
reStructuredText                 8            218            276            144
YAML                             3             12             15             66
TOML                             1              6              0             44
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            167             23
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            35            853           1209           2075
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   103	AnkitBarik
    69	Ankit Barik
     6	Arthus
     1	reguang

dfm · 2024-04-24T13:19:43Z

@athulpg007, @kjg136 — This is the review thread for the paper. All of our correspondence will happen here from now on. Thanks again for agreeing to participate!

👉 Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above, and generate your checklists by commenting @editorialbot generate my checklist on this issue ASAP. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#6677 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks but please try to make a start ahead of this as JOSS reviews are by their nature iterative and any early feedback you may be able to provide to the author will be very helpful in meeting this schedule. Please get your review started as soon as possible!

editorialbot · 2024-04-24T13:19:48Z

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1983

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot · 2024-04-24T13:19:49Z

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU General Public License v3.0 (Check here for OSI approval)

editorialbot · 2024-04-24T13:20:25Z

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

kjg136 · 2024-04-24T13:53:52Z

Review checklist for @kjg136

Conflict of interest

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

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/AnkitBarik/planetMagFields?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@AnkitBarik) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
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.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
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

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
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

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
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?
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

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
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?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
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?

athulpg007 · 2024-04-24T16:55:53Z

Review checklist for @athulpg007

Conflict of interest

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

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/AnkitBarik/planetMagFields?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@AnkitBarik) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
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.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
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

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
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

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
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?
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

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
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?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
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?

athulpg007 · 2024-04-29T08:59:46Z

@AnkitBarik please take a look at the comments below. More details are available in the linked issues.

Several example snippets use datDir='planetmagfields/data/' which will not exist if the package was installed using pip. Please see Non-existent data dir path in basic example for Planet() when using pip AnkitBarik/planetMagFields#8.
Please add a section for "Contributions/Community Guidelines" to README. See Add Community guidelines for contributions by third parties AnkitBarik/planetMagFields#9
Please see the suggested improvements for automated unit tests. Suggested improvements for automated unit tests AnkitBarik/planetMagFields#10

athulpg007 · 2024-04-30T09:23:57Z

Thanks for addressing the above issues. Please also see: AnkitBarik/planetMagFields#11

athulpg007 · 2024-05-02T10:57:05Z

I have completed my initial review of the submission. This is a useful package for researchers working in the area of planetary magnetic fields by providing a fast method of plotting field data for various planets. The package is well written, along with documentation and examples to help new users get started.

My concerns raised earlier have been fixed, thanks. Please see further comments below:

According to the JOSS formatting guidelines, the paper should be between 250-1000 words. Currently, the word count is ~2k. Please consider revising the paper to reduce the length. Some suggestions are given below:

Consider shortening the "Mathematics" section to give a high-level overview, and move details to the documentation if needed.
In "Description of Software, Software package", consider removing the input lines [3, 4] which shows some coefficients. The example can be limited to showing how to plot a field.
Consider shortening the "Jupyter frontend" section, it would suffice to include a link to the binder notebook. Consider removing the line "The utilization of an interactive Jupyter notebook for the exploration of planetary magnetic fields represents a significant advancement in the pedagogical and research approach to planetary magnetic fields.", as the use of an existing general data science tool such as a Jupyter notebook in itself cannot be considered a "significant advancement" in the field of research.
Consider if the screenshot figures 5 and 6 can be removed, .

My suggestion is to shorten the paper to ~5 pages or less, including references. It would then be easier for a diverse, non-specialist audienceto quickly get a high-level understanding of the package, and then refer to the documentation for more mathematical details, example Jupyter notebook etc.

I could run the interactive Jupyter Notebook locally. When trying to run the binder online, the page loaded but the interactive notebook kept trying to load, but could not succeed. Please verify if the binder notebooks still work as expected.

Thanks!

AnkitBarik · 2024-05-02T19:12:38Z

@athulpg007 Thank you very much for the comments. I have made the following changes:

- Added an additional reference I had missed earlier to the package SHTools.
- Shortened the "Mathematics" section and removed the figure on there and moved the details to the documentation. I think the remaining description is required for readers to understand what is going on in the package. If you think it's still too much, I can try cutting it down even more with a link to the documentation.
- Removed input lines [3,4] as suggested from "Description of Software, Software package".
- Shortened the "Jupyter frontend" section significantly with only a sentence and the link to the binder.
- Removed screenshot figures 5 and 6.
  The main text of the paper is now 4 pages long (including figures). However, because of the large number of references, the total length is 7 pages. I believe the references should be there as the libraries and other studies used, need to be cited. If you have any other suggestions for slashing down on content, I would be happy to do so.
I verified on my end that the binder works as intended. I'm not entirely sure why it didn't work.

Thank you!

AnkitBarik · 2024-05-02T19:15:29Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-05-02T19:16:42Z

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

kjg136 · 2024-05-03T19:30:39Z

I have completed my review of the submission, including the changes made in response to the first reviewer's comments. I agree that the package is useful for visualizing and analyzing planetary magnetic fields. To my knowledge, the authors are correct in their statement that no such package for a high-level language is currently established and therefore, the submission represents a valuable contribution. The documentation and examples are clear, making the package easy to understand and use.

I see no major issues and wish to only make two quick comments:

Grammatical error in line 53 of the paper: ...as how that field looks ~~like~~ at...
I can confirm I was able to use the binder.

athulpg007 · 2024-05-04T05:48:07Z

Thanks for the updates to the paper.

I have completed my review, and recommend to accept this submission.

AnkitBarik · 2024-05-05T03:49:23Z

@kjg136 @athulpg007 Thank you very much for your reviews. I have fixed the grammatical error.

AnkitBarik · 2024-05-05T04:00:54Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-05-05T04:02:16Z

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

AnkitBarik · 2024-05-05T18:09:37Z

I made one last change to the paper, I updated the citation for PlanetMag to the correct zenodo doi.

AnkitBarik · 2024-05-05T18:09:47Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-05-05T18:11:31Z

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

editorialbot · 2024-05-08T18:25:55Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1029/2012JE004159 is OK
- 10.1016/j.pepi.2017.07.001 is OK
- 10.1029/2018JE005835 is OK
- 10.1029/2021JE007055 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-018-0468-5 is OK
- 10.1002/2018GL077312 is OK
- 10.1029/97JA03726 is OK
- 10.1029/JA092iA13p15329 is OK
- 10.1029/91JA01165 is OK
- 10.1006/icar.2002.6834 is OK
- 10.1186/s40623-020-01288-x is OK
- 10.1016/j.pss.2009.04.008 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aat5434 is OK
- 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.113541 is OK
- 10.1016/j.pepi.2011.05.013 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-0-12-415845-0.00006-2 is OK
- 10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.31 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-fluid-122109-160727 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-012387582-2/50038-1 is OK
- 10.1201/b12985 is OK
- 10.1002/ggge.20071 is OK
- 10.2151/jmsj.2018-019 is OK
- 10.1007/s11214-023-00961-3 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10602418 is OK
- 10.1186/s40623-020-01252-9 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10598528 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4080294 is OK
- 10.1029/2018GC007529 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10864719 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: The ParaView Guide: A Parallel Visualization Appli...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Cartopy: a cartographic python library with a Matp...

INVALID DOIs

- None

AnkitBarik · 2024-05-08T18:26:25Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-05-08T18:27:35Z

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

dfm · 2024-05-09T18:49:44Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-05-09T18:49:46Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-05-09T18:50:09Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1029/2012JE004159 is OK
- 10.1016/j.pepi.2017.07.001 is OK
- 10.1029/2018JE005835 is OK
- 10.1029/2021JE007055 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-018-0468-5 is OK
- 10.1002/2018GL077312 is OK
- 10.1029/97JA03726 is OK
- 10.1029/JA092iA13p15329 is OK
- 10.1029/91JA01165 is OK
- 10.1006/icar.2002.6834 is OK
- 10.1186/s40623-020-01288-x is OK
- 10.1016/j.pss.2009.04.008 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aat5434 is OK
- 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.113541 is OK
- 10.1016/j.pepi.2011.05.013 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-0-12-415845-0.00006-2 is OK
- 10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.31 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-fluid-122109-160727 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-012387582-2/50038-1 is OK
- 10.1201/b12985 is OK
- 10.1002/ggge.20071 is OK
- 10.2151/jmsj.2018-019 is OK
- 10.1007/s11214-023-00961-3 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10602418 is OK
- 10.1186/s40623-020-01252-9 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10598528 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4080294 is OK
- 10.1029/2018GC007529 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10864719 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: The ParaView Guide: A Parallel Visualization Appli...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Cartopy: a cartographic python library with a Matp...

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-05-09T18:51:41Z

⚠️ Error preparing paper acceptance. The generated XML metadata file is invalid.

No declaration for attribute displaystyle of element mfrac

dfm · 2024-05-09T18:55:32Z

@AnkitBarik — I know that that error message is a little opaque, but my guess is that the issue here is with the use of dfrac in the manuscript. Could you try switching it to frac and we can try this again?

AnkitBarik · 2024-05-09T19:02:17Z

@dfm I have switched it to \frac and verified that it still looks fine on the pdf.

dfm · 2024-05-09T19:42:14Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-05-09T19:42:16Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-05-09T19:42:44Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1029/2012JE004159 is OK
- 10.1016/j.pepi.2017.07.001 is OK
- 10.1029/2018JE005835 is OK
- 10.1029/2021JE007055 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-018-0468-5 is OK
- 10.1002/2018GL077312 is OK
- 10.1029/97JA03726 is OK
- 10.1029/JA092iA13p15329 is OK
- 10.1029/91JA01165 is OK
- 10.1006/icar.2002.6834 is OK
- 10.1186/s40623-020-01288-x is OK
- 10.1016/j.pss.2009.04.008 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aat5434 is OK
- 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.113541 is OK
- 10.1016/j.pepi.2011.05.013 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-0-12-415845-0.00006-2 is OK
- 10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.31 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-fluid-122109-160727 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-012387582-2/50038-1 is OK
- 10.1201/b12985 is OK
- 10.1002/ggge.20071 is OK
- 10.2151/jmsj.2018-019 is OK
- 10.1007/s11214-023-00961-3 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10602418 is OK
- 10.1186/s40623-020-01252-9 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10598528 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4080294 is OK
- 10.1029/2018GC007529 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10864719 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: The ParaView Guide: A Parallel Visualization Appli...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Cartopy: a cartographic python library with a Matp...

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-05-09T19:43:40Z

👋 @openjournals/aass-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#5337, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

dfm · 2024-05-09T19:44:16Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2024-05-09T19:44:18Z

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-05-09T19:50:51Z

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Barik
  given-names: Ankit
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5747-669X"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Angappan
  given-names: Regupathi
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6258-0659"
contact:
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Barik
  given-names: Ankit
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5747-669X"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4690524
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Barik
    given-names: Ankit
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5747-669X"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Angappan
    given-names: Regupathi
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6258-0659"
  date-published: 2024-05-09
  doi: 10.21105/joss.06677
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 97
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 6677
  title: "planetMagFields: A Python package for analyzing and plotting
    planetary magnetic field data"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06677"
  volume: 9
title: "planetMagFields: A Python package for analyzing and plotting
  planetary magnetic field data"

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

editorialbot · 2024-05-09T19:50:54Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2024-05-09T19:50:55Z

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.06677 joss-papers#5338
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06677
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

dfm · 2024-05-09T19:51:06Z

@athulpg007, @kjg136 — Many thanks for your reviews here! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you!!

@AnkitBarik — Your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS! ⚡🚀💥

editorialbot · 2024-05-09T19:51:09Z

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06677/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06677)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06677">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06677/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06677/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06677

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

AnkitBarik · 2024-05-09T19:56:01Z

@dfm @athulpg007 @kjg136 This is wonderful! Thank you very much for help and reviews ! 🎉🎉🎉
@dfm I had one question : what is JOSS policy for cross-posting on Arxiv?

athulpg007 · 2024-05-10T04:00:27Z

Congratulations @AnkitBarik!

dfm · 2024-05-10T12:11:10Z

@dfm I had one question : what is JOSS policy for cross-posting on Arxiv?

JOSS is happy for you to post to arXiv and you can use @editorialbot generate preprint to produce the required .tex file. Sometimes arXiv rejects JOSS papers as out of scope and there's not too much we can do about that unfortunately.

AnkitBarik · 2024-05-12T04:36:22Z

@editorialbot generate preprint

editorialbot · 2024-05-12T04:37:53Z

📄 Preprint file created: Find it here in the Artifacts list 📄

editorialbot added Jupyter Notebook Python review TeX Track: 1 (AASS) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Space Sciences labels Apr 24, 2024

editorialbot assigned dfm Apr 24, 2024

editorialbot mentioned this issue Apr 24, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: planetMagFields: A Python package for analyzing and plotting planetary magnetic field data #6387

Closed

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label May 9, 2024

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels May 9, 2024

dfm closed this as completed May 9, 2024

editorialbot mentioned this issue Jun 24, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: PyGMI - a python package for geoscience modelling and interpretation #6472

Closed

[REVIEW]: planetMagFields: A Python package for analyzing and plotting planetary magnetic field data #6677

[REVIEW]: planetMagFields: A Python package for analyzing and plotting planetary magnetic field data #6677

Comments

editorialbot commented Apr 24, 2024 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Apr 24, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 24, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 24, 2024

dfm commented Apr 24, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 24, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 24, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 24, 2024

kjg136 commented Apr 24, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @kjg136

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

athulpg007 commented Apr 24, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @athulpg007

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

athulpg007 commented Apr 29, 2024

athulpg007 commented Apr 30, 2024

athulpg007 commented May 2, 2024

AnkitBarik commented May 2, 2024

AnkitBarik commented May 2, 2024

editorialbot commented May 2, 2024

kjg136 commented May 3, 2024

athulpg007 commented May 4, 2024

AnkitBarik commented May 5, 2024 • edited Loading

AnkitBarik commented May 5, 2024

editorialbot commented May 5, 2024

AnkitBarik commented May 5, 2024

AnkitBarik commented May 5, 2024

editorialbot commented May 5, 2024

editorialbot commented May 8, 2024

AnkitBarik commented May 8, 2024

editorialbot commented May 8, 2024

dfm commented May 9, 2024

editorialbot commented May 9, 2024

editorialbot commented May 9, 2024

editorialbot commented May 9, 2024

dfm commented May 9, 2024

AnkitBarik commented May 9, 2024

dfm commented May 9, 2024

editorialbot commented May 9, 2024

editorialbot commented May 9, 2024

editorialbot commented May 9, 2024

dfm commented May 9, 2024

editorialbot commented May 9, 2024

editorialbot commented May 9, 2024

editorialbot commented May 9, 2024

editorialbot commented May 9, 2024

dfm commented May 9, 2024

editorialbot commented May 9, 2024

AnkitBarik commented May 9, 2024

athulpg007 commented May 10, 2024

dfm commented May 10, 2024

AnkitBarik commented May 12, 2024

editorialbot commented May 12, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading

kjg136 commented Apr 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading

athulpg007 commented Apr 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading

AnkitBarik commented May 5, 2024 •

edited

Loading