[REVIEW]: Lyapunov Cycle Detector (LCD.jl): A new tool for the study of basins of attraction induced by rational maps

[whedon]

Submitting author: @valvarezapa (Víctor Álvarez)
Repository: https://github.com/valvarezapa/LCD
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version:
Editor: @lucaferranti
Reviewers: @lbenet, @rpgowers
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/f1ef469fd112e580d64d5e9afaa43003"><img src="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/f1ef469fd112e580d64d5e9afaa43003/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/f1ef469fd112e580d64d5e9afaa43003/status.svg)](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/f1ef469fd112e580d64d5e9afaa43003)

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

@lbenet & @rpgowers, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

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

Review checklist for @lbenet

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JuliaCon conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

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

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@valvarezapa) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

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 function 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

Paper format

• Authors: Does the paper.tex file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
• Page limit: Is the page limit for extended abstracts respected by the submitted document?

Content

• Context: is the scientific context motivating the work correctly presented?
• Methodology: is the approach taken in the work justified, presented with enough details and reference to reproduce it?
• Results: are the results presented and compared to approaches with similar goals?

Review checklist for @rpgowers

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JuliaCon conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

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

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@valvarezapa) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

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 function 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

Paper format

• Authors: Does the paper.tex file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
• Page limit: Is the page limit for extended abstracts respected by the submitted document?

Content

• Context: is the scientific context motivating the work correctly presented?
• Methodology: is the approach taken in the work justified, presented with enough details and reference to reproduce it?
• Results: are the results presented and compared to approaches with similar goals?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @lbenet, @rpgowers it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper 🎉.

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

⭐ Important ⭐

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-review) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-review:

2. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[whedon]

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

[whedon]

Wordcount for paper.tex is 523

[whedon]

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.04 s (354.5 files/s, 129418.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TeX                              8            222            167           2177
Julia                            1            168            448            996
Markdown                         1             35              0             56
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            357             53
Ruby                             1              7              3             37
YAML                             1              0              0             20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            13            432            975           3339
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Statistical information for the repository '9d7a0420dd7e18b72ff2cc79' was
gathered on 2024/02/13.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Víctor Álvarez Apari             3            94             47          100.00

Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:

Author                     Rows      Stability          Age       % in comments
Víctor Álvarez Apari         47           50.0          0.0                6.38

[whedon]

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1137/141000671 may be a valid DOI for title: Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing
- 10.1016/j.topol.2023.108578 may be a valid DOI for title: Algorithms for computing basins of attraction associated with a rational self-map of the Hopf fibration based on Lyapunov exponents
- 10.32513/tbilisi/1528768904 may be a valid DOI for title: Plotting basins of end points of rational maps with Sage

INVALID DOIs

- None

[lucaferranti]

@lbenet @rpgowers thank you for volunteering to review.

You can find your review checklist at the top of this issue. As you go through the checklist, you can either comment here your observations or open directly issues in the software repository.

If you have any questions, let me know

[whedon]

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

[whedon]

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