[PRE REVIEW]: OptiCommPy: Open-source Simulation of Fiber Optic Communications with Python

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @edsonportosilva (Edson Porto da Silva)
Repository: https://github.com/edsonportosilva/OptiCommPy/
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): add-paper
Version: v0.7.0-alpha
Editor: @lucydot
Reviewers: @klb2, @ebezzam, @taladjidi
Managing EiC: Kyle Niemeyer

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/813fc963fb14f4ef99a49151743182cf"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/813fc963fb14f4ef99a49151743182cf/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/813fc963fb14f4ef99a49151743182cf/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/813fc963fb14f4ef99a49151743182cf)

Author instructions

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

@edsonportosilva 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=3.66 s (68.1 files/s, 19703.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML                            86           9888             86          15254
JavaScript                      13           2439           2514           9272
Python                          33           2374           3718           5227
Jupyter Notebook                19              0          13819           2699
SVG                              1              0              0           2671
CSS                              4            190             40            779
reStructuredText                86            220            237            211
TeX                              1             14              0            143
Markdown                         2             38              0            103
YAML                             2              6             20             28
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           249          15181          20442          36422
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 958

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/50.622902 is OK
- 10.1109/JSTQE.2010.2044751 is OK
- 10.1109/JLT.2009.2039464 is OK
- 10.1109/JLT.2020.2996188 is OK
- 10.1109/JLT.2017.2786351 is OK
- 10.1109/JLT.2017.2662082 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[edsonportosilva]

Hello, potential reviewers for this paper could be dhimmel, klb2, 0xCoto, and LyceanEM.

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot invite @lucydot as editor

Hi @lucydot, is this something you could edit?

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[lucydot]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @lucydot is now the editor

[lucydot]

@kyleniemeyer - it's a little outside, but will manage! :)

[lucydot]

@ebezzam @dhimmel @klb2 - hello 👋 - are you available to review this submission to JOSS?

[klb2]

Hi @lucydot
I would be happy to review this submission.

[dhimmel]

@lucydot declining since the software domain of "systems, subsystems, and components of fiber optic communication systems" is too far outside of my area of expertise for me to confidently assess the software. Best of luck and thanks for thinking of me.

[lucydot]

Great @klb2 👍

@dhimmel - thanks for your response, hope to work with you on another review sometime 🖊️

[lucydot]

@editorialbot add @klb2 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@klb2 added to the reviewers list!

[lucydot]

@taladjidi @amritagos @ebezzam - hello 👋 - are you available to review this submission to JOSS?

[ebezzam]

hey @lucydot fiber optics is out of my area of expertise so I wouldn't be able to provide critical feedback there. But the digital communications and DSP aspects are more within my domain of knowledge (and also testing Python software). If you think that's enough, I could review

[lucydot]

Hi @ebezzam - yes, it sounds like you can make a valuable contribution - I will add you to the reviewers list - thank you!

[lucydot]

@editorialbot add @ebezzam as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@ebezzam added to the reviewers list!

[taladjidi]

Hi @lucydot I am willing to review this paper 👍

[lucydot]

Great, thank you @taladjidi!

[lucydot]

@editorialbot add @taladjidi as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@taladjidi added to the reviewers list!

[lucydot]

Excellent, @ebezzam @taladjidi - I have added you as reviewers, thank you for agreeing to review this submission to JOSS ⭐

If you haven't reviewed for JOSS before, you can find some detailed information about the review process on the documentation pages: reviewing for JOSS, review criteria, review checklist. You don't need to read this all, but it gives some context if wanted.

The key things that are different from standard journals are: i) everything happens in a Github review thread; ii) the review is a conversation back and forth - you do not need to do you review in a single step; iii) the review is structured in that you work your way through a checklist.

We ask that reviews are completed in about 4 weeks. We advise you start the review early, as it is an iterative process between reviewers and authors.

I will now ask editorialbot to generate a new issue thread which is where the review will take place (this is the pre-review thread). Instructions for you (to generate your review checklist) will be provided there.

If you have any other questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Discussion on the review thread is the best place to contact me, but you can also contact me via email ([email protected]) if there is something you'd rather not be public.

[lucydot]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6600.