[REVIEW]: ler : LVK (LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA collaboration) event (compact-binary mergers) rate calculator and simulator

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @hemantaph (Hemantakumar Phurailatpam)
Repository: https://github.com/hemantaph/ler/
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main
Version: v0.4.0
Editor: @dfm
Reviewers: @michellegurevich
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fa0b14e4c1d1eaf09cb34cc0aedd7881"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fa0b14e4c1d1eaf09cb34cc0aedd7881/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fa0b14e4c1d1eaf09cb34cc0aedd7881/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fa0b14e4c1d1eaf09cb34cc0aedd7881)

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

@michellegurevich, 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 @michellegurevich

[editorialbot]

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]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1093/mnras/stad2909 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1bb4 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03283 is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001 is OK
- 10.1093/ptep/ptaa125 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac23db is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: A lensing multi-messenger channel: Combining LIGO-...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: NumPy: A fundamental package for scientific comput...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Numba: A High Performance Python Compiler
- No DOI given, and none found for title: SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific C...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: gwcosmo: A Python package for gravitational-wave c...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Search for gravitational-lensing signatures in the...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.44 s (516.0 files/s, 362518.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML                            70           4093            211          57614
Jupyter Notebook                60              0          41992           6968
Python                          23           1452           5746           4812
SVG                              5              0              0           2698
JavaScript                      16            188            309           1208
CSS                             10            258             81           1193
reStructuredText                33          15907          13171            340
TeX                              1             16              0            167
Markdown                         2             49              0            155
YAML                             4              7             29             61
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           226          21982          61547          75251
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   280	Hemantakumar Phurailatpam
    67	hemantakumar.phurailatpam
    34	hemantaph
    27	Phurailatpam Hemantakumar
     2	David Keitel
     1	Narola Harsh
     1	Otto Akseli Hannuksela

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1663

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

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

[dfm]

@michellegurevich — 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#7420 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]

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

[michellegurevich]

Review checklist for @michellegurevich

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/hemantaph/ler/?
• 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 (@hemantaph) 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?

[hemantaph]

@michellegurevich @dfm How would I know the status of the review?

[hemantaph]

@michellegurevich @dfm How would I know the status of the review?

[michellegurevich]

@hemantaph You can see the status of my review on the checklist generated above, not sure for the second reviewer

[hemantaph]

@michellegurevich

General checks

• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@hemantaph) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
  Author's reply: The authors and contributors are specified in the paper draft and also in the documentation. Are there other places where I need to specify the author list?

• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
  Author's reply: 1. The package has commits older than 3 months. 2. How many commits are eligible? 3. ler has 9 authors which are specified in the paper draft. 4. ler has more than 1000 lines of code. 5. The software has been reference in https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.07298 and https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.07526 . 6. Whether the software is sufficiently useful that it is likely to be cited by your peer group. Yes, it has been already cited. Also it has been undergone PnP review in the LIGO community. What else should I take care in this section?

• 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.
  Author's reply:
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.