[PRE REVIEW]: CalibrateEmulateSample.jl: Accelerated Parametric Uncertainty Quantification

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @odunbar (Oliver Dunbar)
Repository: https://github.com/CliMA/CalibrateEmulateSample.jl
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.5.0
Editor: @sappelhoff
Reviewers: @matt-graham, @Vaibhavdixit02, @nluetts
Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c761e46a8a82ce342fad84a2f3e1ae69"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c761e46a8a82ce342fad84a2f3e1ae69/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c761e46a8a82ce342fad84a2f3e1ae69/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c761e46a8a82ce342fad84a2f3e1ae69)

Author instructions

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

@odunbar 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=0.07 s (1158.4 files/s, 188798.3 lines/s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                      files          blank        comment           code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                            36           1439           1215           6594
Markdown                         24            632              0           2558
YAML                              8             51              6            319
TeX                               1             26              0            248
TOML                             11             10              0            160
SVG                               1              0              0             71
Bourne Again Shell                1             10             15             11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                             82           2168           1236           9961
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1514

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04869 is OK
- 10.1029/2022MS002994 is OK
- 10.1109/TPAMI.2021.3097011 is OK
- 10.1214/13-STS421 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04561 is OK
- 10.1137/19M1304891 is OK
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa078 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-6420/ac99fa is OK
- 10.1029/2022MS003245 is OK
- 10.22541/essoar.170365299.96491153/v1 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1088/0266-5611/29/4/045001 may be a valid DOI for title: Ensemble Kalman methods for inverse problems
- 10.1109/allerton.2008.4797607 may be a valid DOI for title: Uniform approximation of functions with random bases
- 10.1214/10-sts327 may be a valid DOI for title: The Random Walk Metropolis: Linking Theory and Practice Through a Case Study

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109716 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002454 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1029/2021MS002735 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1029/2022MS002997 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

UncertainData.jl: a Julia package for working with measurements and datasets with uncertainties.
Submitting author: @kahaaga
Handling editor: @oliviaguest (Active)
Reviewers: @dmbates, @ahwillia
Similarity score: 0.8289

GlobalSensitivity.jl: Performant and Parallel Global Sensitivity Analysis with Julia
Submitting author: @Vaibhavdixit02
Handling editor: @jbytecode (Active)
Reviewers: @zhenwu0728, @storyetfall
Similarity score: 0.8201

TimeseriesSurrogates.jl: a Julia package for generating surrogate data
Submitting author: @kahaaga
Handling editor: @jarvist (Active)
Reviewers: @lucaferranti, @dawbarton
Similarity score: 0.8133

NoisySignalIntegration.jl: A Julia package for uncertainty evaluation of numeric integrals
Submitting author: @nluetts
Handling editor: @jbytecode (Active)
Reviewers: @myousefi2016, @mseri
Similarity score: 0.8075

DataAssimilationBenchmarks.jl: a data assimilation research framework.
Submitting author: @cgrudz
Handling editor: @diehlpk (Active)
Reviewers: @peanutfun, @tmigot
Similarity score: 0.8016

⚠️ 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.

[arfon]

@odunbar - thanks for your submission to JOSS. We're currently managing a large backlog of submissions and the editor most appropriate for your area is already rather busy.

For now, we will need to waitlist this paper and process it as the queue reduces. Thanks for your patience!

[sappelhoff]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @sappelhoff is now the editor

[sappelhoff]

Hi @odunbar, I will be editing your submission to JOSS. Do you have suggestions for potential reviewers?

[odunbar]

Hi @sappelhoff Thanks for editing for us!
We will have a list for you by this evening (Pacific Time) - thanks for your patience.

[odunbar]

Here is a referee list:
ziyiyin97
odow
matt-graham
Shreyas911
thomaspinder

Note that ziyiyin97 & odow also reviewed our sister-package for this codebase (EnsembleKalmanProcesses.jl).

[sappelhoff]

Thanks for the list @odunbar. I will try to hold off with inviting ziyiyin91 and odow for now, to try to get some new pairs of eyes to see your new work.

[sappelhoff]

👋 @matt-graham & @Shreyas911 & @thomaspinder, 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

I will also try to send you a more formal invitation via email.

[matt-graham]

Hi @sappelhoff. Yes I'd be happy to review this submission.

[sappelhoff]

Wonderful, thanks Matt -- I'll assign you now. I have furthermore received your email and the indicated delay in your review will not be a problem ✅

[sappelhoff]

@editorialbot add @matt-graham as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@matt-graham added to the reviewers list!

[sappelhoff]

@editorialbot remind @matt-graham in 16 days

[editorialbot]

Reminder set for @matt-graham in 16 days

[sappelhoff]

@Shreyas911 & @thomaspinder I am giving this a little bump up your notifications list: I'd still be happy to receive a response from you regarding #6229 (comment)

[sappelhoff]

@nluetts & @Vaibhavdixit02 & @kahaaga 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

I will also try to send you a more formal invitation via email.

[sappelhoff]

@editorialbot add @Vaibhavdixit02 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@Vaibhavdixit02 added to the reviewers list!

[sappelhoff]

Reminder set for @Vaibhavdixit02 in 16 days

[sappelhoff]

@odunbar we have two reviewers for your paper now. Both will be able to start their review in 2-3 weeks.

I will wait a bit to try and find a third reviewer before moving this to a new "review issue".

Thanks for your patience!

[sappelhoff]

FYI: nluetts has agreed offline to jump in as a third reviewer in case we don't find anyone else within the next weeks.

[editorialbot]

👋 @matt-graham, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

[Vaibhavdixit02]

@editorialbot generate my checklist

[editorialbot]

Checklists can only be created once the review has started in the review issue

[Vaibhavdixit02]

@sappelhoff I am ready to start my review, so if you are okay with going ahead with creating the review issue please do so, thanks.

[sappelhoff]

@editorialbot add @nluetts as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@nluetts added to the reviewers list!

[sappelhoff]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6372.