[REVIEW]: PyLops-MPI - MPI Powered PyLops with mpi4py

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @rohanbabbar04 (Rohan Babbar)
Repository: https://github.com/PyLops/pylops-mpi
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss
Version: v0.2.1
Editor: @gkthiruvathukal
Reviewers: @gonsie, @mikaem
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.14539781

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/be7da46cc87d0c182b26862b77a6e608"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/be7da46cc87d0c182b26862b77a6e608/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/be7da46cc87d0c182b26862b77a6e608/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/be7da46cc87d0c182b26862b77a6e608)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@gonsie & @mikaem, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @gkthiruvathukal know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @gonsie

📝 Checklist for @mikaem

[editorialbot]

Hello humans, 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 (1154.4 files/s, 150289.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          40           1140           2091           4702
reStructuredText                17            300            279            394
YAML                             7             13             12            182
Markdown                         3             50              0            170
TeX                              1              9              0            125
CSS                              2             24              7             91
make                             2             18              9             49
TOML                             1              3              0             41
HTML                             1              6              0             32
Bourne Shell                     1              3              2             12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            75           1566           2400           5798
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   187	rohanbabbar04
    44	mrava87
    24	Rohan Babbar
     4	Matteo Ravasi

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 993

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 (Check here for OSI approval)

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.softx.2019.100361 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2021.3083216 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01340 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.06415 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03419 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1093/gji/ggab388 is OK
- 10.1190/1.1444517 is OK
- 10.1109/tgrs.2022.3179626 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: CuPy: A NumPy-Compatible Library for NVIDIA GPU Ca...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[gonsie]

Review checklist for @gonsie

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/PyLops/pylops-mpi?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@rohanbabbar04) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1. Contribute to the software 2. Report issues or problems with the software 3. Seek support

Software paper

• Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

[mikaem]

Review checklist for @mikaem

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/PyLops/pylops-mpi?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@rohanbabbar04) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1. Contribute to the software 2. Report issues or problems with the software 3. Seek support

Software paper

• Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

[mikaem]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @mikaem, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Run checks and provide information on the repository and the paper file
@editorialbot check repository

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

[mikaem]

@gkthiruvathukal I have gone through the checklist and I have very few issues. The software installs immediately on my mac and the tests run with just a few fails that could simply be due to roundoff on my computer. The tests all pass on github actions and I see no need to follow this up further here. The documentation is good. One minor thing, you need to install the dev-environment.yml in order to run tests. That is not really what the README says and it should probably be fixed.

I have just a few issue with the written paper. The figure contains very small text and I don't think it is referenced in running text? I think it can safely be removed or else it needs to be introduced properly. Also, at the bottom of page 2 DistributedArray and StackedDistributedArray are formatted in bold, but I think they should be formatted like the other code objects, like pylops_mpi.MPIVstack.

[gkthiruvathukal]

@mikaem Thanks for this feedback. @rohanbabbar04, please respond and continue to engage here and address these issues.

We will give @gonsie time to enter a review and proceed from there!

[rohanbabbar04]

@gkthiruvathukal I have gone through the checklist and I have very few issues. The software installs immediately on my mac and the tests run with just a few fails that could simply be due to roundoff on my computer. The tests all pass on github actions and I see no need to follow this up further here. The documentation is good. One minor thing, you need to install the dev-environment.yml in order to run tests. That is not really what the README says and it should probably be fixed.

I have just a few issue with the written paper. The figure contains very small text and I don't think it is referenced in running text? I think it can safely be removed or else it needs to be introduced properly. Also, at the bottom of page 2 DistributedArray and StackedDistributedArray are formatted in bold, but I think they should be formatted like the other code objects, like pylops_mpi.MPIVstack.

Hi @mikaem ,
Thanks for the feedback, let me look into these and get back to you ASAP.

[rohanbabbar04]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[rohanbabbar04]

Hi @mikaem ,

Thank you for your feedback!

Here are some points regarding the feedback:

• The installation procedure for developers is documented on the Installation page. We typically don't include this information in the README, but instead, document it in the installation guide. Additionally, we provide a Makefile that we ask developers to use for installation.
• DistributedArray and StackedDistributedArray have been updated to pylops_mpi.DistributedArray and pylops_mpi.StackedDistributedArray.
• I would like to retain the figure, as it illustrates the main architecture of the library and operators. However, I agree that it should be referenced appropriately. I've added a line referencing Fig 1.

[mikaem]

Hi @gkthiruvathukal @rohanbabbar04
This is ok by me.

[gkthiruvathukal]

@mikaem Thanks!
We will await input from @gonsie.

[rohanbabbar04]

Thanks @mikaem for your feedback.
I will wait for @gonsie 's feedback

[rohanbabbar04]

Hi @gonsie,
Is there any update on your review of the paper?

[rohanbabbar04]

Hi @gonsie, @gkthiruvathukal

Any update on the review?

[gkthiruvathukal]

@gonsie Can you please let us know your timeline for completing your review?
@rohanbabbar04 Thanks for your continued patience.

[gonsie]

I've completed my review. The submitted paper and associated repository are well documented and have a clear contribution. I approve this submission.

Thank you.

[editorialbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

[gkthiruvathukal]

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.14539781 as archive

[editorialbot]

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.14539781

[gkthiruvathukal]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.softx.2019.100361 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2021.3083216 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01340 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.06415 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03419 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1093/gji/ggab388 is OK
- 10.1190/1.1444517 is OK
- 10.1109/tgrs.2022.3179626 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: CuPy: A NumPy-Compatible Library for NVIDIA GPU Ca...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👋 @openjournals/csism-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#6305, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[danielskatz]

👋 @rohanbabbar04 - as track chair, I've proofread this paper, and have suggested some small changes in PyLops/pylops-mpi#125. Please merge this, or let me know what you disagree with, then we can continue to acceptance and publication.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

@rohanbabbar04 - please check the proof this generates and confirm that it looks good for publishing

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.softx.2019.100361 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2021.3083216 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01340 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.06415 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03419 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1093/gji/ggab388 is OK
- 10.1190/1.1444517 is OK
- 10.1109/tgrs.2022.3179626 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: CuPy: A NumPy-Compatible Library for NVIDIA GPU Ca...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👋 @openjournals/csism-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#6307, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[danielskatz]

👋 @rohanbabbar04 - I see I missed a period in "operations Examples". Can you add it?

[rohanbabbar04]

👋 @rohanbabbar04 - I see I missed a period in "operations Examples". Can you add it?

Thanks, @danielskatz! I completely missed that, but I’ve added it and made the change.

It looks good now and looks ready for publishing

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.softx.2019.100361 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2021.3083216 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01340 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.06415 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03419 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1093/gji/ggab388 is OK
- 10.1190/1.1444517 is OK
- 10.1109/tgrs.2022.3179626 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: CuPy: A NumPy-Compatible Library for NVIDIA GPU Ca...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👋 @openjournals/csism-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#6308, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot accept

[editorialbot]

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Babbar
  given-names: Rohan
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7203-7641"
- family-names: Ravasi
  given-names: Matteo
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0020-2721"
- family-names: Hong
  given-names: Yuxi
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0741-6602"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14539781
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Babbar
    given-names: Rohan
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7203-7641"
  - family-names: Ravasi
    given-names: Matteo
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0020-2721"
  - family-names: Hong
    given-names: Yuxi
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0741-6602"
  date-published: 2025-01-07
  doi: 10.21105/joss.07512
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 105
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 7512
  title: PyLops-MPI - MPI Powered PyLops with mpi4py
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07512"
  volume: 10
title: PyLops-MPI - MPI Powered PyLops with mpi4py

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

[editorialbot]

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

[editorialbot]

🦋🦋🦋 👉 Bluesky post for this paper 👈 🦋🦋🦋

[editorialbot]

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.07512 joss-papers#6309
1. Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07512
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

[danielskatz]

Congratulations to @rohanbabbar04 (Rohan Babbar) and co-authors on your publication!!

And thanks to @gonsie and @mikaem for reviewing, and to @gkthiruvathukal for editing!
JOSS fully depends on volunteers and couldn't do this without you

[editorialbot]

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following

code snippets

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07512/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07512)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07512">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07512/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07512/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07512

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

• Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-open-journals