[REVIEW]: Felino: Extension of an open-source phase-field framework to geomaterial fracture

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @DanielChou0916 (Daniel Chou)
Repository: https://github.com/DanielChou0916/felino
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main
Version: v1.0.2
Editor: @AnjaliSandip
Reviewers: @pmocz, @shahchiragh
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fa288ce4b331f3b23f567d5958357cbe"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fa288ce4b331f3b23f567d5958357cbe/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fa288ce4b331f3b23f567d5958357cbe/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fa288ce4b331f3b23f567d5958357cbe)

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

@pmocz & @shahchiragh, 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 @AnjaliSandip 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 @pmocz

[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]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- None

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Revisiting nucleation in the phase-field approach ...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- 10.1016/j.softx.2020.100430 may be a valid DOI for title: MOOSE: Enabling massively parallel multiphysics si...
- 10.1007/s00366-006-0049-3 may be a valid DOI for title: libMesh: A C++ library for parallel adaptive mesh ...
- 10.2139/ssrn.5291375 may be a valid DOI for title: Felino: A Modular Open-Access Software for High-Cy...
- 10.1007/s10704-022-00653-z may be a valid DOI for title: The revisited phase-field approach to brittle frac...
- 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2024.113170 may be a valid DOI for title: Emergence of tension–compression asymmetry from a ...
- 10.1016/j.tafmec.2022.103555 may be a valid DOI for title: A general framework for decomposing the phase fiel...
- 10.1002/nme.6244 may be a valid DOI for title: The concept of representative crack elements for p...
- 10.2139/ssrn.4980916 may be a valid DOI for title: A comparative study of the Representative Crack El...

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Repository Analysis Report

Code breakdown

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.98  T=0.09 s (1959.1 files/s, 328898.9 lines/s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                      files          blank        comment           code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SWIG                             81           1399              0          20720
C++                              39            589            488           3664
C/C++ Header                     36            380            499            919
XML                               1              0              0            256
Markdown                          3             55              0            124
TeX                               1              9              5             80
make                              2             15             41             79
YAML                              3              6              0             51
Bourne Shell                      2             12              6             43
Text                              5             15              0             33
Python                            2              7             10             24
Bourne Again Shell                1              2              1             15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            176           2489           1050          26008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit Count by Author

87	Daniel Chou
    12	DanielChou0916

Repository History

Repository age: First commit on April 26, 2025

GitHub Activity Metrics

Metric	Count
GitHub stars	4
Forks	2
GitHub contributors	1
Releases	0
Total issues	0
Total pull requests	0
Unique commenters/reviewers (excluding authors)	0

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 269

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 (Check here for OSI approval)

[editorialbot]

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

[pmocz]

Review checklist for @pmocz

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/DanielChou0916/felino?
• 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 (@DanielChou0916) 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?