[PRE REVIEW]: PyRolL - An Extensible OpenSource Framework for Rolling Simulation

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @axtimhaus (Max Weiner)
Repository: https://github.com/pyroll-project/pyroll-core
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss
Version: 2.1
Editor: @philipcardiff
Reviewers: @philipcardiff, @rboman
Managing EiC: Kyle Niemeyer

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/651a81f7f8f5ce47120e760c1f9f3942"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/651a81f7f8f5ce47120e760c1f9f3942/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/651a81f7f8f5ce47120e760c1f9f3942/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/651a81f7f8f5ce47120e760c1f9f3942)

Author instructions

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

@axtimhaus 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=0.09 s (1284.5 files/s, 115016.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                         102           1985            858           5149
TeX                              1             94              0            986
Markdown                         8            111              0            292
TOML                             2             12              1             78
YAML                             1              1              4             18
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            706              2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           115           2203           1569           6525
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1219

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1098/rspa.1972.0025 is OK
- 10.12688/f1000research.23224.2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.commatsci.2005.01.009 is OK
- 10.2355/isijinternational.46.1458 is OK
- 10.1016/S1005-8850(08)60065-1 is OK
- 10.1179/030192304225011016 is OK
- 10.1002/srin.200506068 is OK
- 10.1002/srin.196705760 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.12.007 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.commatsci.2018.07.043 is OK
- 10.1002/nme.1328 is OK
- 10.1002/srin.200706280 is OK
- 10.1007/s11665-008-9289-2 is OK
- 10.1016/S0924-0136(00)00734-2 is OK
- 10.1016/S0921-5093(01)01964-5 is OK
- 10.1016/S0924-0136(02)00347-3 is OK
- 10.2355/isijinternational.35.1100 is OK
- 10.2355/isijinternational.42.868 is OK
- 10.1016/0924-0136(96)02307-2 is OK
- 10.1515/teme-2019-0130 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.6053272 is OK
- 10.1016/0890-6955(92)90022-9 is OK
- 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.12.038 is OK
- 10.1243/PIME_PROC_1961_175_043_02 is OK
- 10.1016/j.proeng.2014.09.149 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.04.124 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-322-88346-9 is OK
- 10.2355/isijinternational.40.65 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1002/srin.200806353 may be a valid DOI for title: A Physical Based Method to Predict Spread and Shape during Flat Rolling for Real-Time Application
- 10.1016/j.rcim.2014.04.006 may be a valid DOI for title: Development of a Geometric Modelling Strategy for Roll Pass Optimal Design
- 10.2355/isijinternational.35.1100 may be a valid DOI for title: Integrated Model for Calculating Microstructural and Forming Parameters of Steel during Rolling in Continuous Mills
- 10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2005.07.023 may be a valid DOI for title: A Review of Rolling System Design Optimisation
- 10.25518/esaform21.3987 may be a valid DOI for title: A Computational Method for Pass Design of the Four-Roll Rolling Process Forsizing of Round Sections
- 10.1002/srin.198801607 may be a valid DOI for title: Breitung beim Warmwalzen auf geneigter Bahn
- 10.1051/metal/193936060257 may be a valid DOI for title: Étude Sur Le Phénomène de l’élargissement Dans Les Laminoirs

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

RayFlare: flexible optical modelling of solar cells
Submitting author: @phoebe-p
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @kanderso-nrel, @EricaEgg
Similarity score: 0.8120

polypy - Analysis Tools for Solid State Molecular Dynamics and Monte Carlo Trajectories
Submitting author: @symmy596
Handling editor: @richardjgowers (Active)
Reviewers: @hmacdope, @lscalfi
Similarity score: 0.8060

RHEIA: Robust design optimization of renewable Hydrogen and dErIved energy cArrier systems
Submitting author: @DCoppitters
Handling editor: @fraukewiese (Active)
Reviewers: @andr1976, @ClaraBuettner
Similarity score: 0.8060

pyro: a framework for hydrodynamics explorations and prototyping
Submitting author: @harpolea
Handling editor: @labarba (Retired)
Reviewers: @mikaem, @ngoldbaum
Similarity score: 0.8052

Reel1.0 - A visualization tool for evaluating powder diffraction refinements
Submitting author: @fgjorup
Handling editor: @rkurchin (Active)
Reviewers: @cmbiwer, @mikapfl
Similarity score: 0.8038

⚠️ 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 before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[kyleniemeyer]

Hello @axtimhaus, thanks for your submission to JOSS. Unfortunately, we don't have an editor available to handle this right now, so I have to put it on our waitlist until someone frees up.

In the meantime, could you take a look at those missing DOI messages above? Any reviewer suggestions would also be welcome.

[axtimhaus]

I have added the missing DOIs as mentioned in the list.

Regarding reviewers: Our field is really small, especially those guys with experience in programming. Most that we know already gave us feedback on our work, or are cooperating with us in other unrelated or loosely related projects. Some others have definitely competing interests, since they are related to commercial simulation tools. We can, however, still provide the information for you to assess.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman is now the editor

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@kyleniemeyer I picked this one up. 🛻

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@axtimhaus thanks for this submission. Could you clarify what aspects are under review here? The paper title says PyRolL, the repository listed above here however points at PyRolL-core, but that repository shows there are 28 projects that depend on it, that all seem related: https://github.com/pyroll-project/pyroll-core/network/dependents. So, could you clarify what should be reviewed here please? Is it simply the entire project? Thanks

[axtimhaus]

Please consider the project as a whole. PyRolL uses a highly modular approach to ensure extensibility and reuseability.

The core repository/package is the common basis for implementation of models and application logic. The other repositories contain plugins (modeling approaches) and extensions (application logic, UI). The user can install and import the different modules as needed to construct a simulation. See an example in the docs on this.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@axtimhaus thanks for the clarification.

As a recommendation (not a requirement just as one researcher to another) I would say that it would be great to extend your README with a bit of an explanation of what the software does. I would first briefly explain what rolling you are talking about, e.g. groove rolling. It would be great to have a graphic visualizing the rolling process. There are manual and automated groove rollers I suppose. Is your work relevant to both types? Next if you clarified what the typical inputs are, what the purpose of the simulation is, what its assumptions are (mention or refer to underlying theory), and what the typical outputs are, that would be great. Actually I would add as much visual information as possible. E.g. graphs or a table of typical outputs. I would also briefly mention what these outputs allow one to do? e.g. optimise/evaluate X for the process. At the moment as an outsider, it looks tricky to see what the software does.
If this was a FEM package the equivalent would be showing some meshes, the element types, the material model assumptions (e.g. linear elasticity/plasticity), some assumptions on boundary conditions, visualising some model predictions etc. Perhaps you can show some equivalent information? This doesn't have to be too technical/detailed. At the moment it just says "rolling simulation" and "groove rolling in elongation grooves" but it is unclear what this means.
I tried checking out the documentation, e.g. https://pyroll.readthedocs.io/en/latest/examples/basic.html but even that basic example doesn't say something like, "This is a example of the use of PyRolL for the evaluation of X and Y for this and this rolling process. Figure X shows the typical set-up for such a rolling process. This example helps to evaluate the rolling force, and the final shape of the.... " I feel that in many cases this type of detail is missing. The same for this step by step one: https://pyroll.readthedocs.io/en/latest/examples/step_by_step/index.html. There is no brief introduction to say what it is about. One has to already know all the physics involved and understand your code approach to dive in and see from the code what is going on. Hope I do not sound overly critical, this work looks interesting and well prepared. I just think more breadcrumbs and introduction texts and visuals of the processes would be great.

FYI your link here to the "Institute of Metal Forming" doesn't work.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@axtimhaus have you given the above some thought? Actually I highly recommend the above. Even from the point of view of me finding reviewers, and those potential reviewers having a look at your project to quickly understand if it is their "cup of tea" and if they could review it.

[axtimhaus]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Yes, thank you for your valuable comments. Unfortunately we are booked out this week, so it could last until beginning of next week until we are able to go through this in detail.
You may delay start of review until this of course.

[ChRen95]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman please feel free to continue the review process.
@axtimhaus and myself have included the first suggested changes.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@ChRen95 @axtimhaus thanks for the initial stab at the README. I think there is still work to be done, also on the documentation, and adding visualisations would be great too.

I will proceed to look for reviewers to avoid further delay. If at this point you are able to help suggest reviewers, please mention their names or GitHub handles here. If you do, please leave out the @ symbol so they are not tagged.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@philipcardiff do you know any potential reviewers for this one?

[philipcardiff]

@philipcardiff do you know any potential reviewers for this one?

Let me check with a colleague and come back to you.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

Thanks @philipcardiff FYI I picked this one up to avoid the backlog we were building up. If you could take on an extra one and could it instead let me know :) If not no worries, and thanks for checking for reviewers with your colleagues.

[philipcardiff]

Sure, I am happy to take this one.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@philipcardiff great thanks. Over to you then. I had some comments ☝️ on the "presentation" of this work. If you agree you can follow up.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot assign @philipcardiff as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @philipcardiff is now the editor

[philipcardiff]

Hi @rboman, would you review this submission for JOSS? The submission under consideration is PyRolL - An Extensible OpenSource Framework for Rolling Simulation (https://github.com/pyroll-project/pyroll-core). I think your experience with the METAFOR code makes you a suitable reviewer.

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

Philip

[philipcardiff]

Hi @JorgeDeLosSantos, would you review this submission for JOSS? The submission under consideration is PyRolL - An Extensible OpenSource Framework for Rolling Simulation (https://github.com/pyroll-project/pyroll-core). Based on your GitHub experiences with the finite element method, I think you are a suitable reviewer.

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

Philip

[rboman]

Hi @philipcardiff,
I'm not immediately available, but this type of code falls indeed within my field of research and I also want to understand how this reviewing system works.
So I'll be able to start looking into this in 1 or 2 weeks if it is OK for you.

[philipcardiff]

Hi @philipcardiff,
I'm not immediately available, but this type of code falls indeed within my field of research and I also want to understand how this reviewing system works.
So I'll be able to start looking into this in 1 or 2 weeks if it is OK for you.

Thanks @rboman; yes, it is fine for you to take 1 or 2 weeks to understand the system. I will remind you then.

[philipcardiff]

@editorialbot add @philipcardiff as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@philipcardiff added to the reviewers list!

[philipcardiff]

Hi @rboman, Happy New Year! Are you happy for me to add you as a reviewer for this submission? I am happy to advise if you have any questions on the process or system.

FYI, in addition, I will also review this submission as it lies within my research area.

[rboman]

Hello @philipcardiff Happy new year too.
I already had a quick look to it before my vacations (installation from PyPI and running basic simulations). I have also read the documentation. I'll continue in a few days.

[philipcardiff]

Thanks, @rboman. In that case, I can add you as a reviewer and we can move from the pre-review stage to the review stage.

[philipcardiff]

@editorialbot add @rboman as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@rboman added to the reviewers list!

[philipcardiff]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6200.

[philipcardiff]

@rboman, @axtimhaus, we can continue the discussion at the review issue (#6200).