[PRE REVIEW]: matbench-genmetrics: A Python library for benchmarking crystal structure generative models using time-based splits of Materials Project structures

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @sgbaird (Sterling Baird)
Repository: https://github.com/sparks-baird/matbench-genmetrics
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.6.1
Editor: @phibeck
Reviewers: @ml-evs, @mkhorton, @jamesrhester
Managing EiC: Kevin M. Moerman

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7ba5a67474e60ef6927a8635354b8546"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7ba5a67474e60ef6927a8635354b8546/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7ba5a67474e60ef6927a8635354b8546/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7ba5a67474e60ef6927a8635354b8546)

Author instructions

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

@sgbaird 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=0.08 s (742.8 files/s, 359632.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          26            704           1254           1847
Jupyter Notebook                 5              0          21769           1194
Markdown                        12            212              0            698
TeX                              6             27              0            362
YAML                             5             21             72            209
INI                              1             11              0             83
Dockerfile                       1             15             23             26
make                             1              6              8             15
TOML                             1              1              3              5
JSON                             1              0              0              1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            59            997          23129           4440
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1671

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.26434/chemrxiv-2022-6l4pm is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-019-10030-5 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04528 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00839 is OK
- 10.1038/s43588-022-00349-3 is OK
- 10.1038/s41524-020-00406-3 is OK
- 10.1063/1.4812323 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-022-08413-8 is OK
- 10.3389/fphar.2020.565644 is OK
- 10.1016/j.matt.2021.11.032 is OK
- 10.1107/S2056989019016244 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-019-1335-8 is OK
- 10.1002/advs.202100566 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot invite @phibeck as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[phibeck]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @phibeck is now the editor

[phibeck]

Hi @sgbaird, thanks for your submission. I'll be looking for reviewers next. A few things you can do to speed up the review process:

• it would be helpful if you could identify a few potential reviewers from this list https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/reviewers (without tagging them with an @)
• there are some broken references in the acknowledgements. Please fix these and regenerate the pdf using @editorialbot generate pdf
• it looks like there are a couple of lists in your statement of need that aren't shown correctly, please check
• as a side note: your paper is on the longer side (we aim for <= 1000 words, but not strict), so you could think about moving some of the function documentation into the repository directly

[sgbaird]

Hi @sgbaird, thanks for your submission. I'll be looking for reviewers next. A few things you can do to speed up the review process:

@phibeck, thanks for looking it over!

• it would be helpful if you could identify a few potential reviewers from this list reviewers.joss.theoj.org/reviewers (without tagging them with an @)

ml-evs, dandavies99, mkhorton

• there are some broken references in the acknowledgements. Please fix these and regenerate the pdf using @editorialbot generate pdf
• it looks like there are a couple of lists in your statement of need that aren't shown correctly, please check

Thanks for catching! Both of these should be fixed now.

• as a side note: your paper is on the longer side (we aim for <= 1000 words, but not strict), so you could think about moving some of the function documentation into the repository directly

I've attempted to condense it. Thanks for letting me know!

[phibeck]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[phibeck]

Thanks, @sgbaird! The manuscript looks good now!

👋 @ml-evs, @dandavies99 & @mkhorton, would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[ml-evs]

Yep, I can take this one on!

[phibeck]

Great, thank you! I'll assign you as a reviewer.

[phibeck]

@editorialbot add @ml-evs as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@ml-evs added to the reviewers list!

[mkhorton]

Happy to be added too!

[phibeck]

Wonderful, thanks!

[phibeck]

@editorialbot add @mkhorton as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@mkhorton added to the reviewers list!

[phibeck]

👋 @jamesrhester & @taw10, would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[jamesrhester]

Happy to review.

[phibeck]

Thank you! I'll close the Pre Review and start the Review process in another issue.

[phibeck]

@editorialbot add @jamesrhester as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@jamesrhester added to the reviewers list!

[phibeck]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #5618.