[PRE REVIEW]: CTSEG: A segment picture quantum impurity solver based on TRIQS

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @nkavokine (Nikita Kavokine)
Repository: https://github.com/TRIQS/ctseg
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): 3.3.x
Version: 3.3.0
Editor: @lucydot
Reviewers: @HugoStrand, @egcpvanloon
Managing EiC: Kyle Niemeyer

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/78121720b03290b539169e8bcc42a007"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/78121720b03290b539169e8bcc42a007/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/78121720b03290b539169e8bcc42a007/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/78121720b03290b539169e8bcc42a007)

Author instructions

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

@nkavokine 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 1.90  T=0.06 s (2537.2 files/s, 189537.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C++                             29            702            906           2215
Python                          16            258            314            939
reStructuredText                23            408            251            747
C/C++ Header                    31            369            732            736
CMake                           16            117            169            553
CSS                              2             80             20            354
YAML                             6             24              4            248
Markdown                         6             52              0            144
TeX                              1             10              0            137
HTML                             1              6              0             46
Bourne Shell                     2              6              1             21
Dockerfile                       1              3              3             12
SVG                              6              0              0              6
JavaScript                       2              0             13              2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           142           2035           2413           6160
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   128	nkavokine
    95	Nils Wentzell
    84	Olivier Parcollet
     9	Alexander Hampel
     6	Hao Lu
     5	Henri Menke
     5	Thomas Hahn
     2	Michel Ferrero
     1	Dylan Simon
     1	Nikita Kavokine
     1	clang_format
     1	gen_copyright

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1103/RevModPhys.83.349 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.125102 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.68.13 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.04.023 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.10.023 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.105.L180404 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- None

❌ MISSING DOIs

- 10.1103/physrevlett.133.016501 may be a valid DOI for title: Exact numerical solution of the fully connected cl...

❌ INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2017.01.003 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2012.12.013 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2018.09.007 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 741

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

🟡 License found: Other (Check here for OSI approval)

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

ModeCouplingTheory.jl: A solver for mode-coupling-theory-like integro-differential equations
Submitting author: @IlianPihlajamaa
Handling editor: @mstimberg (Active)
Reviewers: @epspebble, @dawbarton
Similarity score: 0.7334

PyZFS: A Python package for first-principles calculations of zero-field splitting tensors
Submitting author: @hema-ted
Handling editor: @dfm (Active)
Reviewers: @xwang862, @malramsay64
Similarity score: 0.7300

QuaCa: an open-source library for fast calculations of steady-state quantum friction
Submitting author: @myoelmy
Handling editor: @lucydot (Active)
Reviewers: @arkajitmandal, @vijaymocherla
Similarity score: 0.7066

Surfaxe: Systematic surface calculations
Submitting author: @brlec
Handling editor: @danielskatz (Active)
Reviewers: @pzarabadip, @eihernan
Similarity score: 0.7050

KMC_Lattice v2.0: An Object-Oriented C\texttt{++} Library for Custom Kinetic Monte Carlo Simulations
Submitting author: @MikeHeiber
Handling editor: @katyhuff (Retired)
Reviewers: @myousefi2016, @mdoucet
Similarity score: 0.7038

⚠️ 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.

[kyleniemeyer]

@nkavokine we will use this issue to assign an editor and find reviewers—any recommendations for the latter would be welcome (but please do not tag/invite them yourself). In the meantime, can you also address those DOI errors above?

@lucydot could you edit this submission?

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot invite @lucydot as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[lucydot]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @lucydot is now the editor

[nkavokine]

Hi @kyleniemeyer! The DOI issues have been corrected.

[lucydot]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1103/RevModPhys.83.349 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.125102 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.68.13 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.04.023 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.10.023 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2017.01.003 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2012.12.013 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2018.09.007 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.105.L180404 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.016501 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- None

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[lucydot]

Hi @nkavokine - I'll be the editor handling this submission.

@nkavokine 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.

[nkavokine]

Hi @lucydot, thanks for handling our submission! I can suggest Hugo Strand (Orebro University) and Erik van Loon (Lund University) as reviewers.

[lucydot]

Hi @HugoStrand are you available to review this submission to JOSS? If this is the first time you have reviewed for us you can find more information here. The review process is quite different from other journals as everything happens here, as a conversation on Github.

[lucydot]

Note here that I have contacted Erik via email.

[egcpvanloon]

@lucydot I am available to review this submission.

[HugoStrand]

Dear @lucydot, thank you for reaching out. I would be happy to review the submission. Best, Hugo

[lucydot]

Hi @egcpvanloon @HugoStrand - great! I will add you both as reviewers and then start the review (which will be on a new thread). There will be instructions at the top of thread for you. If you have any other questions, please just ask. We expect reviews to take 4-6 weeks, however it is an iterative procedure - a conversation between authors, reviewers and editors - so please start your review as early as you can.

[lucydot]

@editorialbot add @HugoStrand as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@HugoStrand added to the reviewers list!

[lucydot]

@editorialbot add @egcpvanloon as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@egcpvanloon added to the reviewers list!

[lucydot]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #7425.