JOSS paper suggestions

[Sujay-Shankar]

The paper is well-written, and understandable even to someone like myself that is a non-specialist.
I have a few suggestions for completeness and quality.

A statement of need

• The statement of need section does clearly state what problems PST solves and its relation to other work, but it needs to be more explicit in stating its target audience. Practitioners in which fields? What expertise levels? What's the use case (as in analysis, visualization, interface, etc.)? That sort of thing.

State of the field

• There is the sentence fragment: "Compared to alternative approaches in the literature", but this should be elaborated on with an example or two of existing solutions.

References

The following things should be cited if possible:

• The existing solutions that would be added to address the suggestion above
• PyKOALA
• BESTA
• CosmoSIS
• SVO Filter Profile Service
• Lick system

Miscellaneous Edits

• "Cosmosis" should be stylized as "CosmoSIS".
• "Spanish Virtual Observatory Filter Profile Servive" should be "Spanish Virtual Observatory Filter Profile Service"

openjournals/joss-reviews#8203

[PabloCorcho]

Dear @Sujay-Shankar,

Once again, thanks for the constructive report. The changes of the paper are implemented via #65. Here I will provide some additional comments to facilitate the review process.

A statement of need

* [ ]  The statement of need section does clearly state what problems PST solves and its relation to other work, but it needs to be more explicit in stating its target audience. Practitioners in which fields? What expertise levels? What's the use case (as in analysis, visualization, interface, etc.)? That sort of thing.

We have updated the second paragraph to clearly define the target audience as researchers and practitioners in stellar population synthesis, extragalactic astronomy, and galaxy evolution. We also specify that PST is intended for users with a basic familiarity with Python and astrophysical modeling. The primary use cases, such as analysis of synthetic stellar populations and photometric predictions, are now explicitly mentioned.

State of the field

* [ ]  There is the sentence fragment: "Compared to alternative approaches in the literature", but this should be elaborated on with an example or two of existing solutions.

We’ve expanded this sentence and added references to two widely used pipelines: starlight and cigale.

References

The following things should be cited if possible:

* [ ]  The existing solutions that would be added to address the suggestion above
* [ ] PyKOALA

Unfortunately, the presentation paper of pykoala is still in preparation.

[ ] BESTA
[ ] CosmoSIS
[ ] SVO Filter Profile Service
[ ] Lick system

References included.

Miscellaneous Edits

* [ ]  "Cosmosis" should be stylized as "CosmoSIS".[ ]  "Spanish Virtual Observatory Filter Profile Servive" should be "Spanish Virtual Observatory Filter Profile Service"

Typos corrected.

Please let me know if further modifications are needed.

[Sujay-Shankar]

Hey Pablo:

Awesome changes, they look great!
For PyKOALA, I understand they are working on their paper and so an official paper is not available to cite.
This is fine, I've encountered this same issue before.
In this case, what I recommend is to manually construct a citation to their GitHub repository.
In the past, I used the following format to do so:

@misc{<label>,
  author = {<author>},
  title = {<title>},
  year = {<year released>},
  publisher = {GitHub},
  journal = {GitHub repository},
  url = {<URL to GitHub repository>}
}

[PabloCorcho]

Hi, thanks for the recommendation. I have included the reference using the template.