[REVIEW]: Photon Weave

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @SimonSekavcnik (Simon Sekavcnik)
Repository: https://github.com/tqsd/photon_weave
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): master
Version: 0.1.4
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewers: @taladjidi, @a-eghrari
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fe9e64db9ec0c4c54ac6748dacb831ad"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fe9e64db9ec0c4c54ac6748dacb831ad/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fe9e64db9ec0c4c54ac6748dacb831ad/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fe9e64db9ec0c4c54ac6748dacb831ad)

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

@taladjidi & @a-eghrari, 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 @danielskatz 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

@taladjidi, please create your checklist typing: @editorialbot generate my checklist

@a-eghrari, please create your checklist typing: @editorialbot generate my checklist

[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=0.08 s (730.7 files/s, 163406.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          35           1508           2277           8411
reStructuredText                11            310            363            273
YAML                             4             22             22            119
Markdown                         3             24              0             84
TeX                              1              3              0             81
INI                              3              4              0             33
TOML                             1              3              2             27
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
SVG                              1              0              0             21
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            61           1886           2672           9084
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    51	Simon Sekavcnik
    10	Simon Sekavčnik
     9	kareem1925
     5	SimonSekavcnik
     2	Kareem H. El-Safty

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1009

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: Apache License 2.0 (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1007/bf01344458 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: QuTiP: An open-source Python framework for the dyn...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy pr...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum compu...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Piquasso: A Photonic Quantum Computer Simulation S...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- 10.22331/q-2019-03-11-129 may be a valid DOI for title: Strawberry fields: A software platform for photoni...
- 10.1109/tqe.2021.3092395 may be a valid DOI for title: Qunetsim: A software framework for quantum network...
- 10.23919/date.2019.8715261 may be a valid DOI for title: IBM’s Qiskit tool chain: Working with and developi...
- 10.1103/physreva.66.024303 may be a valid DOI for title: Theorem for the beam-splitter entangler

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[danielskatz]

@taladjidi and @a-eghrari - 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. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

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#7468 so that a link is created to this 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 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if either of you require some more time. We can also use editorialbot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

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