[PRE REVIEW]: Taweret: a Python package for Bayesian model mixing

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @ominusliticus (Kevin Ingles)
Repository: https://github.com/bandframework/Taweret.git
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-submission
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @rkurchin
Reviewers: @julienmalard, @gchure
Managing EiC: Kyle Niemeyer

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/43c5f0d033f24fb1c0a1ae00326a169b"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/43c5f0d033f24fb1c0a1ae00326a169b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/43c5f0d033f24fb1c0a1ae00326a169b/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/43c5f0d033f24fb1c0a1ae00326a169b)

Author instructions

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

@ominusliticus 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=1.23 s (44.6 files/s, 249497.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JSON                             2              0              0         293408
Python                          19            819           1731           2189
Jupyter Notebook                10              0           6359           1181
Markdown                         4            110              0            442
TeX                              2             88             65            393
reStructuredText                12            142            136            206
YAML                             3              4              3             64
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
Bourne Shell                     1              0              0              5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            55           1175           8302         297923
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 2364

[editorialbot]

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

[kyleniemeyer]

Hi @ominusliticus, thanks for your submission to JOSS. Unfortunately, we do not have an editor available to handle your submission right now, so I have to put this on our waitlist until someone frees up.

In the meantime, I'd welcome any reviewer suggestions, and we can get the paper compilation fixed. Can you remove the .tex file in the directory, in case that is causing a conflict, and also the header-includes section in the header? I don't believe we support that.

[rkurchin]

@editorialbot add me as editor

🤚 I can take this one!

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @rkurchin is now the editor

[rkurchin]

👋 @seandamiandevine and @thodson-usgs, would 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

[ominusliticus]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

[ominusliticus]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

swyft: Truncated Marginal Neural Ratio Estimation in Python
Submitting author: @bkmi
Handling editor: @pdebuyl (Active)
Reviewers: @mattpitkin, @olgadoronina
Similarity score: 0.8071

pymcmcstat: A Python Package for Bayesian Inference Using Delayed Rejection Adaptive Metropolis
Submitting author: @prmiles
Handling editor: @katyhuff (Retired)
Reviewers: @djmitche, @katyhuff
Similarity score: 0.8064

bmm: Bayesian Map-matching
Submitting author: @SamDuffield
Handling editor: @taless474 (Retired)
Reviewers: @georgiastuart, @matt-graham
Similarity score: 0.8010

Multiple Inference: A Python package for comparing multiple parameters
Submitting author: @dsbowen
Handling editor: @vissarion (Active)
Reviewers: @blakeaw, @mattpitkin, @nhejazi
Similarity score: 0.7982

uravu: Making Bayesian modelling easy(er)
Submitting author: @arm61
Handling editor: @dfm (Active)
Reviewers: @ejhigson, @joshspeagle
Similarity score: 0.7978

⚠️ 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.

[seandamiandevine]

I don't think I will be available to review this article in a timely manner, but I can suggest @m-clark who's expertise in Bayesian mixture modeling might overlap with this.

[rkurchin]

👋 @m-clark, @arm61, and/or @julienmalard, would 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

[julienmalard]

I can review @rkurchin .
How/where should I submit the review?

[rkurchin]

@editorialbot add @julienmalard as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@julienmalard added to the reviewers list!

[rkurchin]

@julienmalard this submission is currently in pre-review; once I find at least one more reviewer, a new review issue will be opened where there will be instructions for generating and completing your review checklist – we try to keep things very clear, but feel free to ask if you have any questions during the process!

[rkurchin]

@eigenfoo and/or @ejhigson, would 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

[arm61]

Sorry for the delay in replying. Unfortunately with my current teaching load, I don't have the bandwidth to review this paper at the moment.

[ejhigson]

Likewise sorry for the slow reply!I'm afraid I have left academia and don't have capacity to do these reviews anymore sorry. Good luck with the submission!EdOn 19 Dec 2023, at 13:56, Andrew McCluskey ***@***.***> wrote: Sorry for the delay in replying. Unfortunately with my current teaching load, I don't have the bandwidth to review this paper at the moment. —Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[rkurchin]

👋 @dsbowen and/or @gchure, 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

[gchure]

Hi @rkurchin, I'm happy to review this work (though, I will likely take 2 weeks).

[rkurchin]

@editorialbot add @gchure as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@gchure added to the reviewers list!

[rkurchin]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6175.