[PRE REVIEW]: Qiskit Experiments: A Python package to characterize and calibrate quantum computers

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @eggerdj (Daniel Egger)
Repository: https://github.com/Qiskit/qiskit-experiments
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper
Version: 0.4.0
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewers: @nunezco2, @goerz, @TejasAvinashShetty
Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/db68fcbca2c6abd4a31d3fb87d82690b"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/db68fcbca2c6abd4a31d3fb87d82690b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/db68fcbca2c6abd4a31d3fb87d82690b/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/db68fcbca2c6abd4a31d3fb87d82690b)

Author instructions

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

@eggerdj 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]

Couldn't check the bibtex because branch name is incorrect: https://github.com/Qiskit/qiskit-experiments/tree/paper

[editorialbot]

Couldn't check the bibtex because branch name is incorrect: https://github.com/Qiskit/qiskit-experiments/tree/paper

[editorialbot]

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot set paper as branch

[editorialbot]

Done! branch is now paper

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot check repository

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.73 s (586.9 files/s, 100870.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                         260          10801          18732          33559
YAML                           101            110              4           2141
reStructuredText                38            874           1396            982
Markdown                        10            245              0            788
HTML                             3             51              5            309
TeX                              1             22              0            228
Jupyter Notebook                 2              0           2865            218
CSS                              3             20              8            206
INI                              1             11              0             67
Bourne Shell                     2             15             28             28
Jinja Template                   1              0              0              9
JSON                             6              0              0              6
TOML                             1              1              0              5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           429          12150          23038          38546
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 867

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot check references

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1088/2058-9565/aba404 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2303.02108 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevA.100.032328 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevA.61.010304 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.033027 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2211.16439 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3455847 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2209.00678 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.2573505 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4091470 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.180504 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2208.00576 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.11813 is OK
- 10.1088/2058-9565/ab8e92 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.17.064061 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2207.11268 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.6363115 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[danielskatz]

👋 @eggerdj - thanks for your submission - I'll be the editor for it. Do you have any suggestions for reviewers? Either from your own knowledge or from this list of people who have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list)? If so, please mention their github username here (without tagging them with a @) if possible.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @danielskatz is now the editor

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @nunezco2 as reviewer

Thanks @nunezco2 for agreeing to review. Once we get one or two more reviewers, we'll start the review.

[editorialbot]

@nunezco2 added to the reviewers list!

[danielskatz]

👋 @eggerdj - please note as above that I'm waiting for reviewer suggestions from you

[eggerdj]

Dear Daniel, after discussing with the team here are some reviewer suggestions taken from the list and other names that you may wish to consider:

- Michael Goerz (on the JOSS list) 
- Tejas Shetty (on the JOSS list)
- Someone from Prof. Stefan Filipp's group at WMI
- Lauren Capelluto https://www.linkedin.com/in/lcapelluto Github: lcapelluto
- Benjamin Rosand https://www.linkedin.com/in/benjamin-rosand Github: brosand
- Zachary Schoenfeld https://www.linkedin.com/in/zachary-schoenfeld-ab4678155 Github: zachschoenfeld33

[danielskatz]

👋 @goerz & @TejasAvinashShetty - Would either of you be willing to review this JOSS submission?

[danielskatz]

👋 @lcapelluto & @brosand, would one 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 Overall, the JOSS review process is open and iterative, and aims at ensuring the work can be published by improving it.

[eggerdj]

FYI @danielskatz the link to the documentation of Qiskit Experiments will change. See here: qiskit-community/qiskit-experiments#1096 it might be nice to update the link in the draft. The redirect should be permanent so the link should not break regardless. @coruscating

[danielskatz]

👋 @eggerdj - you can change the draft if you want, then use the command @editorialbot generate pdf to make a new PDF. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

[goerz]

I’d be willing to review this

[goerz]

@eggerdj Is this submission a prelude to removing the note in the documentation that “This package is still under active development and it is very likely that there will be breaking API changes in future releases”? Generally, I’d consider a stable API a prerequisite for a publication about a package

[danielskatz]

👋 @goerz - thanks, I'll add you, but I'm hoping to add a third reviewer as well before we start the review itself.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @goerz as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @goerz is now the editor

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @danielskatz is now the editor

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @goerz as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@goerz added to the reviewers list!

[danielskatz]

@eggerdj Is this submission a prelude to removing the note in the documentation that “This package is still under active development and it is very likely that there will be breaking API changes in future releases”? Generally, I’d consider a stable API a prerequisite for a publication about a package

This is an interesting question, where JOSS has the expectation that the software is at a level where it can be released, typically above a beta stage. However, even software that has been widely used does sometimes make breaking changes in major releases. My expectation here is that the software would commit to not make many breaking changes in the future, and only doing so in major releases. Perhaps the documentation could say that?

@goerz and @eggerdj - would this make sense?

[goerz]

Yes, sure… I'm not saying they can't make any major releases in the future! :-) In my own projects, I would generally treat <1.0 releases as "I'm not quite sure yet what the appropriate API is, and I'm making changes at any time, without any concern for backward compatibility", whereas 1.0 would be "I'm pretty sure the fundamental design is sound, and I'm not going to break backwards compatibility for at least a year or two if I can help it". Going "on the record" by publishing a paper about a package would probably mean I'm ready to go to 1.0. So maybe, @eggerdj would consider this as a chance to go to 1.0 here as well. In that case, I think JOSS would even allow having a new paper if there is ever a 2.0 release with a major new (breaking) design.

I know there are packages that for various reasons stay below 1.0 even if they're well-established and functionally stable, so I wouldn't consider a 1.0 release an absolute prerequisite for a publication. But it should definitely be beyond the "we're still working out the API" stage (which the message in the documentation would indicate)

[eggerdj]

@danielskatz and @goerz this is a good point. Going forward the Qiskit deprecation policy will be applied https://qiskit.org/documentation/deprecation_policy.html. This will be explicitly stated in the Qiskit Experiments documentation qiskit-community/qiskit-experiments#1101. We believe that Qiskit Experiments is now sufficiently stable but will continue to evolve with the field of quantum computing. The policy outlined above should give users ample time to adjust to an occasional interface change.

[danielskatz]

👋 @zachschoenfeld33 - 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 Overall, the JOSS review process is open and iterative, and aims at ensuring the work can be published by improving it.

[TejasAvinashShetty]

@danielskatz I am willing to review

[danielskatz]

Thanks very much @TejasAvinashShetty - I'll add you, and we'll start the review

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @TejasAvinashShetty as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@TejasAvinashShetty added to the reviewers list!

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #5329.