[REVIEW]: PeriDEM - High-fidelity modeling of granular media consisting of deformable complex-shaped particles

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @prashjha (Prashant K Jha)
Repository: https://github.com/prashjha/PeriDEM
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss
Version: v0.2.2
Editor: @matthewfeickert
Reviewers: @nrichart, @JINGHU-UT
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.17912789

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/dd0c52ad995d506dc88c4cc9b79416d5"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/dd0c52ad995d506dc88c4cc9b79416d5/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/dd0c52ad995d506dc88c4cc9b79416d5/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/dd0c52ad995d506dc88c4cc9b79416d5)

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

@divijghose & @nrichart, 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 @matthewfeickert 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 @divijghose

📝 Checklist for @nrichart

📝 Checklist for @JINGHU-UT

[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=0.53 s (710.5 files/s, 342625.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVG                              4              4              4          41380
C/C++ Header                   158          11551          22547          36252
Python                          38           5991           6508          15856
C++                             57           3590           2435          13231
Markdown                        19           1879              0           6697
YAML                            23            155            184           3862
CSS                              5            506            169           2269
CMake                           34            315            566           1060
CSV                              8              0              0            901
Bourne Shell                    14            151            122            674
JavaScript                       6             72            124            280
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            512            236
TeX                              1             15              0            168
XML                              2              0              0             36
make                             2             15              6             33
reStructuredText                 1              0              0              2
Bazel                            1              0              0              1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           374          24244          33177         122938
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   182	Prashant K. Jha
    14	prashjha

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1680/geot.1979.29.1.47 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jmps.2021.104376 is OK
- 10.1016/S0022-5096(99)00029-0 is OK
- 10.1137/17M1112236 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cma.2019.03.024 is OK
- 10.1002/nme.5791 is OK
- 10.1007/s10704-020-00480-0 is OK
- 10.1007/s42102-019-00010-0 is OK
- 10.3934/dcdsb.2020178 is OK
- 10.1007/s10659-013-9463-0 is OK
- 10.1007/s10659-007-9125-1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.powtec.2018.09.047 is OK
- 10.1109/TPDS.2021.3104255 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Introduction to peridynamics
- No DOI given, and none found for title: METIS: A software package for partitioning unstruc...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: nanoflann: a C++ header-only fork of FLANN, a libr...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 2040

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: Boost Software License 1.0 (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

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

[matthewfeickert]

@divijghose @nrichart @ziyixi Thanks for agreeing to review this submission! This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on. 👍

As you can see above, you each should use the command @editorialbot generate my checklist to create your review checklist. @editorialbot commands need to be the first thing in a new comment.

As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied (and if you leave notes on each item that's even better). There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines. I find it particularly helpful to also use the JOSS review criteria and review checklist docs as supplement/guides to the reviewer checklist @editorialbot will make for you.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#7525 so that a link is created to this Issue thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 4 weeks. Please let me know if either of you require some more time (that's perfectly okay). We can also use @editorialbot to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@matthewfeickert) if you have any questions/concerns.

[matthewfeickert]

@editorialbot add @ziyixi as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@ziyixi added to the reviewers list!

[matthewfeickert]

As mentioned in #7392 (comment), we have had some additional potential reviewers respond to agree to also contribute reviews, and I like to accept 3 reviewers when possible. So @ziyixi will be joining as a reviewer (thanks!).

@ziyixi, please check out #7525 (comment) for additional information, and if you have any questions please let me know.

[matthewfeickert]

👋 @divijghose, @nrichart, @ziyixi don't forget to create your review checklists with

@editorialbot generate my checklist

before starting your review.