[PRE REVIEW]: SyntheticEddyMethod.jl: A Julia package for the creation of inlet flow conditions for LES

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @carlodev (Carlo Brunelli)
Repository: https://github.com/carlodev/SyntheticEddyMethod.jl
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): JossSub
Version: v0.4.1
Editor: @philipcardiff
Reviewers: @atzberg, @akshaysridhar
Managing EiC: Kyle Niemeyer

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8a5b8b6eec19373a7eb3d154b4d0eed6"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8a5b8b6eec19373a7eb3d154b4d0eed6/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8a5b8b6eec19373a7eb3d154b4d0eed6/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8a5b8b6eec19373a7eb3d154b4d0eed6)

Author instructions

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

@carlodev if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

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=0.02 s (1713.3 files/s, 186930.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOML                             3            226              1           1053
Julia                           12            224             97            717
Markdown                         7            183              0            493
YAML                             5              3              6            107
TeX                              1              3              0             50
JSON                             1              0              0              1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            29            639            104           2421
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2006.02.006 is OK
- 10.1007/s10494-013-9488-2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1137/141000671 may be a valid DOI for title: Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2019.02.061 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 654

[editorialbot]

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

[carlodev]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[carlodev]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

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

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

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

# 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 branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

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

[carlodev]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2006.02.006 is OK
- 10.1007/s10494-013-9488-2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2019.02.061 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[kyleniemeyer]

Hi @carlodev, sorry for the radio silence after starting the pre-review issue. I'm in the process of finding an editor for your submission—unfortunately editor availability in this area is low right now.

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot invite @philipcardiff as editor

Hi @philipcardiff, could you handle this submission?

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[philipcardiff]

@editorialbot invite @philipcardiff as editor

Hi @philipcardiff, could you handle this submission?

Yes, I can @kyleniemeyer

[philipcardiff]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @philipcardiff is now the editor

[philipcardiff]

HI @carlodev, I proposed some minor English edits at carlodev/SyntheticEddyMethod.jl#18 and carlodev/SyntheticEddyMethod.jl#19.

[philipcardiff]

Hello @atzberg, would you be interested in reviewing this paper/code?

[carlodev]

@philipcardiff Thank you so much for agreeing to review and point out the typos

[atzberg]

Hi Philip, Sure, I would be happy to review. -- Paul

…

On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 4:58 AM carlodev ***@***.***> wrote: @philipcardiff <https://github.com/philipcardiff> Thank you so much for agreeing to review and point out the typos — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#5416 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACBHSZROINMY3S3OGWIHO53XKG47RANCNFSM6AAAAAAXN67SXA> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[philipcardiff]

Hi Philip, Sure, I would be happy to review. -- Paul
…

Great, thank you, Paul.

Here are the review criteria and review checklist.

I will find at least one other reviewer.

[philipcardiff]

@editorialbot add @atzberg as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@atzberg added to the reviewers list!

[philipcardiff]

Hello @ali-ramadhan, would you review this submission for JOSS? The submission under consideration is SyntheticEddyMethod.jl: A Julia package for the creation of inlet flow conditions for LES (https://github.com/carlodev/SyntheticEddyMethod.jl).

If you are unfamiliar with JOSS, the review process is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. You can have a look at our review criteria and review checklist to get an idea of what is expected.

Philip

[atzberg]

@editorialbot generate my checklist

[editorialbot]

Checklists can only be created once the review has started in the review issue

[philipcardiff]

Hi @carlodev , do you have any reviewer suggestions?

[philipcardiff]

@editorialbot add @akshaysridhar as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@akshaysridhar added to the reviewers list!

[philipcardiff]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #5565.

[philipcardiff]

Hi all, we can continue our coversation in the review issue #5565