[REVIEW]: UncertainSCI: A Python Package for Noninvasive Parametric Uncertainty Quantification of Simulation Pipelines #4249

editorialbot · 2022-03-17T16:50:52Z

Submitting author: @jessdtate (Jess Tate)
Repository: https://github.com/SCIInstitute/UncertainSCI
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.0
Editor: @kellyrowland
Reviewers: @shahmoradi, @RichardClayton, @kellyrowland
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8226383

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/660d2fe53fbf67dd2714e9546251bd33"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/660d2fe53fbf67dd2714e9546251bd33/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/660d2fe53fbf67dd2714e9546251bd33/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/660d2fe53fbf67dd2714e9546251bd33)

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

@shahmoradi & @RichardClayton, 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 @kellyrowland 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 @shahmoradi

📝 Checklist for @RichardClayton

📝 Checklist for @kellyrowland

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

editorialbot · 2022-03-17T16:50:54Z

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 · 2022-03-17T16:50:56Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.14 s (656.3 files/s, 86275.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          51           2503           2383           4928
Markdown                        13            311              0            644
TeX                              2             21              0            217
YAML                             3              8              8             97
reStructuredText                11            113            151             87
Ruby                             1             20              6             83
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
CSS                              1              7              0             23
JavaScript                       2              4              0             17
make                             1              4              7              9
Bourne Shell                     2              1              0              7
HTML                             1              0              0              5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            89           3000           2556           6143
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot · 2022-03-17T16:50:57Z

Wordcount for paper.md is 1182

editorialbot · 2022-03-17T16:50:57Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1002/cnm.3395 is OK
- 10.1007/s10439-011-0391-5 is OK
- 10.1109/iembs.2005.1615736 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-78710-3_49 is OK
- 10.22489/CinC.2020.275 is OK
- 10.23919/cinc53138.2021.9662950 is OK
- 10.23919/cinc53138.2021.9662837 is OK
- 10.1016/j.brs.2021.10.226 is OK
- 10.1137/17M1140960 is OK
- 10.5802/smai-jcm.24 is OK
- 10.1553/etna_vol50s71 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2022-03-17T16:53:07Z

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

kellyrowland · 2022-03-28T17:18:16Z

Hi @shahmoradi & @RichardClayton - just a reminder ping to start on your reviews when you can. Please feel free to @ me if you have any questions or run into any issues!

kellyrowland · 2022-04-11T17:09:22Z

Hi @RichardClayton @shahmoradi - a reminder to start on this review when you are able to. If you're unable to conduct the review, please let me know so that I can find another reviewer.

RichardClayton · 2022-04-12T09:29:28Z

Review checklist for @RichardClayton

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/SCIInstitute/UncertainSCI?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@jessdtate) 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

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 and who the target audience is?
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?

shahmoradi · 2022-04-13T16:21:12Z

How can I generate the checklist?

danielskatz · 2022-04-13T16:24:32Z

You need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

shahmoradi · 2022-04-13T16:48:23Z

Review checklist for @shahmoradi

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/SCIInstitute/UncertainSCI?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@jessdtate) 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

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 and who the target audience is?
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?

kellyrowland · 2022-05-02T16:58:24Z

Hi @shahmoradi @RichardClayton thanks for getting started on your reviews - just checking in; please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

RichardClayton · 2022-05-03T09:14:15Z

Hi Kelly, Thanks -- I am just recovering from an unpleasant bout of covid, which took me out for 2 weeks. I am just catching up with emails and all of the other tasks that have been piling up. I did have a question about feedback to the authors. Is there a mechanism to provide comments on the manuscript beyond the tickboxes on the checklist? Best wishes, Richard --

…

On Mon, 2 May 2022 at 17:58, Kelly L. Rowland ***@***.***> wrote: Hi @shahmoradi <https://github.com/shahmoradi> @RichardClayton <https://github.com/RichardClayton> thanks for getting started on your reviews - just checking in; please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#4249 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACBW7NA4OGEEOJ7GSR33ORLVIACTZANCNFSM5Q7NDIRQ> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- Professor Richard H Clayton INSIGNEO Institute for In-Silico Medicine and Department of Computer Science, University of Sheffield.

kellyrowland · 2022-05-03T16:41:30Z

Hi @RichardClayton - I'm really sorry to hear that, and I hope your recovery is progressing along as well as it can.

For more lengthy suggestions or requests, we suggest that reviewers open issues in the code's Github repository. So, you'll want to navigate to the issues page at https://github.com/SCIInstitute/UncertainSCI/issues and create new issues there for suggestions or requests. It can be helpful to link to those issues here in this review issue as well, to keep track of things.

RichardClayton · 2022-05-25T10:36:01Z

Apologies that I have taken so long to complete my initial review.

I am content to check off most of the boxes for my review. However, there are some minor revisions that I would suggest. These are:

Functionality documentation - The documentation at https://uncertainsci.readthedocs.io/en/latest/api_docs/index.html is of good quality, and there are some nice demos and tutorials, which enable the user to understand how the API works. However I would like to have seen a more comprehensive documentation of the different functions, so that users can quickly find what they are looking for without trawling through the source code.

State of the field - The paper is well written, and commendably short. However, I would like to have seen some reference to other methods for UQ aside from polynomial chaos expansions.

Either in the paper or in the documentation, it would also be very helpful to include a worked example or demo of a non-intrusive UQ exercise with an existing simulator that is not built in to UncertainSCI -- maybe by expanding Figure 1 in the paper. My guess is that most users will wish to deploy UncertainSCI on this type of code, and so this type of example would be expected to improve the use experience.

Best wishes,

Richard

kellyrowland · 2022-05-25T16:09:19Z

@RichardClayton thank you for the thorough review! I understand that just about everyone is stretched quite thin these days, and the JOSS team really appreciates the effort of reviewers.

@shahmoradi checking in again on your review status - please let me know about an update when you can. If you need to set down the review for any reason, please just let me know that so I can find another reviewer.

shahmoradi · 2022-06-04T06:17:47Z

Apologies for my delayed response. The mentions of this thread has apparently been mixed and overlooked among many other daily github emails.

Overall the package looks good, presents substantial work that would merit publication in JOSS. However, there are still a few major issues that need authors' attention, some of which have been also raised by @RichardClayton:

The documentation is very and looks beautiful, but there are parts that are still left as "TODO", or parts that are outdated, for example, the folder demo is mentioned a few times in the documentation, while apparently the corresponding folder in GitHub was later renamed to demos. Consequently, some of the commands in the documentation are non-functional. Some of the examples also appear to be non-functional. Could these examples be converted to Jupyter notebooks ready to run (instead of appearing in the documentation of the library)?
The paper is well-written. There is a typo in section "Statement of the need" @ "...UncertainSCI has been use to quantify..." : use --> used
A discussion of the "state of the field" and existing similar work appears to be missing in the paper. If there is no comparable work, the authors could simply and proudly state that UncertainCI is the first of its kind ever to exist.
There is a documentation section named "Developer documentation", which is essential to have, but it is mainly or only focused on guidelines for tutorials. JOSS requires guidelines for all categories of interested people including those who want to: 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support.
There appears to be several tests in the GitHub respoitory. But I could not find out how I could run the tests. More importantly, there is no coverage report informing the users about the tested percentage of the codebase. This is crucial to bring confidence and reliability with using this software. Ideally the tests and coverage reports should be automated with test results continuously daily reported on the project's front page on GitHub. There are several free code coverage services available that the authors could use, that particularly provide excellent service to the Python community.

I have left the three relevant items in the checklist unmarked for now until I receive the authors' response.

Sincerely

kellyrowland · 2022-07-08T19:25:47Z

hi @jessdtate 👋 checking in on any updates toward review completion if you have them.

jessdtate · 2022-07-08T19:42:01Z

Thanks for checking up @kellyrowland. We are working on implementing the changes suggested by the reviewers.

Do we need to worry about paper length if we add a little more on other methods and software?

kellyrowland · 2022-08-30T16:32:34Z

Thanks for the update - the suggested mark is around 1000 words, but that's flexible. Adding more material to round out the paper should be fine, but I'd be a little wary of, say, anything approaching 1500 words.

kellyrowland · 2022-09-07T17:14:37Z

Hi @openjournals/joss-eics @jessdtate @shahmoradi @RichardClayton - I just wanted to let you all know that I will be out of office and not checking emails, Github, etc. starting September 10 and will be returning on October 3. Happy to field any questions through the end of the week.

kellyrowland · 2022-11-10T17:07:52Z

Hi @jessdtate -checking in here to ask if you think the paper is ready for another look by the reviewers? I see some recent commits in the joss_feedback branch and just wanted to touch base.

oliviaguest · 2023-02-13T08:53:01Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2023-02-13T08:54:29Z

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

editorialbot · 2023-10-11T04:01:22Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2023-10-11T04:01:30Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1002/cnm.3395 is OK
- 10.1007/s10439-011-0391-5 is OK
- 10.1109/iembs.2005.1615736 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-78710-3_49 is OK
- 10.22489/CinC.2020.275 is OK
- 10.23919/cinc53138.2021.9662950 is OK
- 10.23919/cinc53138.2021.9662837 is OK
- 10.1109/TMI.2015.2464315 is OK
- 10.1016/j.brs.2021.10.226 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-540-28650-9_4 is OK
- 10.1137/17M1140960 is OK
- 10.5802/smai-jcm.24 is OK
- 10.1553/etna_vol50s71 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-319-10470-6_66 may be a valid DOI for title: Variational Bayesian electrophysiological imaging of myocardial infarction.

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-10-11T04:03:12Z

👋 @openjournals/sbcs-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#4681, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

oliviaguest · 2023-10-16T12:29:50Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2023-10-16T12:29:52Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2023-10-16T12:29:58Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1002/cnm.3395 is OK
- 10.1007/s10439-011-0391-5 is OK
- 10.1109/iembs.2005.1615736 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-78710-3_49 is OK
- 10.22489/CinC.2020.275 is OK
- 10.23919/cinc53138.2021.9662950 is OK
- 10.23919/cinc53138.2021.9662837 is OK
- 10.1109/TMI.2015.2464315 is OK
- 10.1016/j.brs.2021.10.226 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-540-28650-9_4 is OK
- 10.1137/17M1140960 is OK
- 10.5802/smai-jcm.24 is OK
- 10.1553/etna_vol50s71 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-319-10470-6_66 may be a valid DOI for title: Variational Bayesian electrophysiological imaging of myocardial infarction.

INVALID DOIs

- None

oliviaguest · 2023-10-16T12:31:21Z

@jessdtate I think this is the correct DOI for the article?

Xu, J., Sapp, J.L., Rahimi Dehaghani, A., Gao, F., Wang, L. (2014). Variational Bayesian Electrophysiological Imaging of Myocardial Infarction. In: Golland, P., Hata, N., Barillot, C., Hornegger, J., Howe, R. (eds) Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2014. MICCAI 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8674. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10470-6_66

editorialbot · 2023-10-16T12:31:25Z

👋 @openjournals/sbcs-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#4697, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

jessdtate · 2023-10-16T18:24:14Z

@oliviaguest I've made a tag of a branch with the suggested changes, v1.0.1.1. It should be merged into master soon.

oliviaguest · 2023-10-16T21:30:53Z

@kellyrowland have you used the checklist for this? 😊 see below...

Edit: I see one from August! Sorry!

oliviaguest · 2023-10-17T10:32:32Z

@jessdtate can you run check citations command when it's done, please? ☺️

jessdtate · 2023-10-24T22:47:45Z

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot · 2023-10-24T22:47:56Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1002/cnm.3395 is OK
- 10.1007/s10439-011-0391-5 is OK
- 10.1109/iembs.2005.1615736 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-78710-3_49 is OK
- 10.22489/CinC.2020.275 is OK
- 10.23919/cinc53138.2021.9662950 is OK
- 10.23919/cinc53138.2021.9662837 is OK
- 10.1109/TMI.2015.2464315 is OK
- 10.1016/j.brs.2021.10.226 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-10470-6_66 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-10470-6_66 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-540-28650-9_4 is OK
- 10.1137/17M1140960 is OK
- 10.5802/smai-jcm.24 is OK
- 10.1553/etna_vol50s71 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

oliviaguest · 2023-10-27T15:23:10Z

Thank you!!!

oliviaguest · 2023-10-27T15:23:22Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2023-10-27T15:23:23Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2023-10-27T15:23:28Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1002/cnm.3395 is OK
- 10.1007/s10439-011-0391-5 is OK
- 10.1109/iembs.2005.1615736 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-78710-3_49 is OK
- 10.22489/CinC.2020.275 is OK
- 10.23919/cinc53138.2021.9662950 is OK
- 10.23919/cinc53138.2021.9662837 is OK
- 10.1109/TMI.2015.2464315 is OK
- 10.1016/j.brs.2021.10.226 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-10470-6_66 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-10470-6_66 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-540-28650-9_4 is OK
- 10.1137/17M1140960 is OK
- 10.5802/smai-jcm.24 is OK
- 10.1553/etna_vol50s71 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-10-27T15:25:22Z

👋 @openjournals/sbcs-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#4729, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

oliviaguest · 2023-10-27T15:28:40Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2023-10-27T15:28:41Z

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

editorialbot · 2023-10-27T15:31:06Z

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:
- family-names: Tate
  given-names: Jess
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2934-1453"
- family-names: Liu
  given-names: Zexin
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3409-5709"
- family-names: Bergquist
  given-names: Jake A
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4586-6911"
- family-names: Rampersad
  given-names: Sumientra
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9860-4459"
- family-names: White
  given-names: Dan
- family-names: Charlebois
  given-names: Chantel
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4139-3539"
- family-names: Rupp
  given-names: Lindsay
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2688-7688"
- family-names: Brooks
  given-names: Dana H
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3231-6715"
- family-names: MacLeod
  given-names: Rob S
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0000-0356"
- family-names: Narayan
  given-names: Akil
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5914-4207"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8226383
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Tate
    given-names: Jess
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2934-1453"
  - family-names: Liu
    given-names: Zexin
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3409-5709"
  - family-names: Bergquist
    given-names: Jake A
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4586-6911"
  - family-names: Rampersad
    given-names: Sumientra
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9860-4459"
  - family-names: White
    given-names: Dan
  - family-names: Charlebois
    given-names: Chantel
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4139-3539"
  - family-names: Rupp
    given-names: Lindsay
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2688-7688"
  - family-names: Brooks
    given-names: Dana H
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3231-6715"
  - family-names: MacLeod
    given-names: Rob S
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0000-0356"
  - family-names: Narayan
    given-names: Akil
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5914-4207"
  date-published: 2023-10-27
  doi: 10.21105/joss.04249
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 90
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 4249
  title: "UncertainSCI: A Python Package for Noninvasive Parametric
    Uncertainty Quantification of Simulation Pipelines"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04249"
  volume: 8
title: "UncertainSCI: A Python Package for Noninvasive Parametric
  Uncertainty Quantification of Simulation Pipelines"

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 · 2023-10-27T15:31:11Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2023-10-27T15:31:13Z

🚨🚨🚨 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.04249 joss-papers#4732
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04249
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

oliviaguest · 2023-10-27T16:12:23Z

Huge thanks to the reviewers @shahmoradi, @RichardClayton, and also editor @kellyrowland! ✨ JOSS appreciates your work and effort. ✨ Also, big congratulations to the authors (@jessdtate)! 🥳 🍾

editorialbot · 2023-10-27T16:12:25Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.04249/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04249)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04249">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04249/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04249/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04249

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

editorialbot added Python review TeX labels Mar 17, 2022

editorialbot assigned kellyrowland Mar 17, 2022

editorialbot mentioned this issue Mar 17, 2022

[PRE REVIEW]: UncertainSCI: A Python Package for Noninvasive Parametric Uncertainty Quantification of Simulation Pipelines #4094

Closed

editorialbot added the Track: 4 (SBCS) Social, Behavioral, and Cognitive Sciences label Sep 10, 2022

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Oct 11, 2023

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Oct 27, 2023

oliviaguest closed this as completed Oct 27, 2023

editorialbot mentioned this issue Dec 6, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: GeneralizIT: A Python Solution for Generalizability Theory Computations #7574

Closed

[REVIEW]: UncertainSCI: A Python Package for Noninvasive Parametric Uncertainty Quantification of Simulation Pipelines #4249

[REVIEW]: UncertainSCI: A Python Package for Noninvasive Parametric Uncertainty Quantification of Simulation Pipelines #4249

Comments

editorialbot commented Mar 17, 2022 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Mar 17, 2022

editorialbot commented Mar 17, 2022

editorialbot commented Mar 17, 2022

editorialbot commented Mar 17, 2022

editorialbot commented Mar 17, 2022

kellyrowland commented Mar 28, 2022

kellyrowland commented Apr 11, 2022

RichardClayton commented Apr 12, 2022 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @RichardClayton

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

shahmoradi commented Apr 13, 2022

danielskatz commented Apr 13, 2022

shahmoradi commented Apr 13, 2022 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @shahmoradi

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

kellyrowland commented May 2, 2022

RichardClayton commented May 3, 2022 via email

kellyrowland commented May 3, 2022

RichardClayton commented May 25, 2022

Richard

kellyrowland commented May 25, 2022

shahmoradi commented Jun 4, 2022

kellyrowland commented Jul 8, 2022

jessdtate commented Jul 8, 2022

kellyrowland commented Aug 30, 2022

kellyrowland commented Sep 7, 2022

kellyrowland commented Nov 10, 2022

oliviaguest commented Feb 13, 2023

editorialbot commented Feb 13, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 11, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 11, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 11, 2023

oliviaguest commented Oct 16, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 16, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 16, 2023

oliviaguest commented Oct 16, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 16, 2023

jessdtate commented Oct 16, 2023 • edited Loading

oliviaguest commented Oct 16, 2023 • edited Loading

oliviaguest commented Oct 17, 2023

jessdtate commented Oct 24, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 24, 2023

oliviaguest commented Oct 27, 2023

oliviaguest commented Oct 27, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 27, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 27, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 27, 2023

oliviaguest commented Oct 27, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 27, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 27, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 27, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 27, 2023

oliviaguest commented Oct 27, 2023

editorialbot commented Oct 27, 2023

editorialbot commented Mar 17, 2022 •

edited

Loading

RichardClayton commented Apr 12, 2022 •

edited

Loading

shahmoradi commented Apr 13, 2022 •

edited

Loading

jessdtate commented Oct 16, 2023 •

edited

Loading

oliviaguest commented Oct 16, 2023 •

edited

Loading