[REVIEW]: Pooltool: A Python package for realistic billiards simulation

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @ekiefl (Evan Kiefl)
Repository: https://github.com/ekiefl/pooltool
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.4.1
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewers: @danielskatz
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.13824503

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3dc82db4f7a284ff0cff22fcd926cbe5"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3dc82db4f7a284ff0cff22fcd926cbe5/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3dc82db4f7a284ff0cff22fcd926cbe5/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3dc82db4f7a284ff0cff22fcd926cbe5)

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

@danielskatz, 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

📝 Checklist for @danielskatz

[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

- 10.1109/ssci44817.2019.9003085 is OK
- 10.1109/arso.2012.6213402 is OK
- 10.1109/tmech.2015.2461547 is OK
- 10.1109/mc.2008.33 is OK
- 10.1007/s41095-016-0047-3 is OK
- 10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.011 is OK
- 10.1007/s10489-023-04542-3 is OK
- 10.48550/arxiv.1511.07404 is OK
- 10.34627/rcc.v12iespecial.13 is OK
- 10.1109/cig.2019.8848113 is OK
- 10.1109/tciaig.2016.2549748 is OK
- 10.1609/aimag.v31i4.2312 is OK
- 10.1007/11922155_19 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.11642058 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Automatic Snooker-playing Robot with Speech Recogn...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Automating Skills Using a Robot Snooker Player
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Roboshark: A gantry pool player robot

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.28 s (853.6 files/s, 143004.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                         158           5075           4533          14611
SVG                             26              1              1          13056
Markdown                        19            394              0            732
TeX                              1             16              2            424
reStructuredText                11             59             69            191
YAML                             6             26             29            185
JSON                             8              2              0            140
TOML                             1             18             19            123
XML                              4              0              0             79
make                             2             10              8             42
CSS                              1              1              0             14
Oracle PL/SQL                    1              5              0              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           238           5607           4661          29606
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

  1739	Evan Kiefl
     5	Sergey Lukin
     3	TeXnicians
     2	Ido david
     2	unknown
     1	Chao

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 882

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

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

[editorialbot]

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

[danielskatz]

Review checklist for @danielskatz

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/ekiefl/pooltool?
• 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 (@ekiefl) 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?

[danielskatz]

@ekiefl - please add your country to your affiliation.

Also, in the references:

• the first reference seems to have an incomplete venue/publisher
• Bhagat is not a book but a thesis, so the bibtex should be updated to match https://www.proquest.com/openview/8f032427778440f05e304384c698ec78/1
• For Greenspan et al., please remove the {}s around Pool-Playing
• Similarly for other entries with un-needed {}s, such as Leckie & Greenspan, Mathavan et al.
• Is Sang also a thesis? If so, please update the bibtex

[ekiefl]

@danielskatz, I've addressed these changes in ekiefl/pooltool#149, which is now merged.

• Is Sang also a thesis? If so, please update the bibtex

Yes, I've updated accordingly.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot check references

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1109/ssci44817.2019.9003085 is OK
- 10.1109/arso.2012.6213402 is OK
- 10.1109/tmech.2015.2461547 is OK
- 10.1109/mc.2008.33 is OK
- 10.1007/s41095-016-0047-3 is OK
- 10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.011 is OK
- 10.1007/s10489-023-04542-3 is OK
- 10.48550/arxiv.1511.07404 is OK
- 10.34627/rcc.v12iespecial.13 is OK
- 10.1109/cig.2019.8848113 is OK
- 10.1109/tciaig.2016.2549748 is OK
- 10.1609/aimag.v31i4.2312 is OK
- 10.1007/11922155_19 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.11642058 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Automatic Snooker-playing Robot with Speech Recogn...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Automating Skills Using a Robot Snooker Player
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Roboshark: A gantry pool player robot

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[danielskatz]

Note: expedited review as this was already reviewed for pyOpenSci: pyOpenSci/software-submission#173

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot set v0.4.1 as version

[editorialbot]

Done! version is now v0.4.1

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.13824503 as archive

[editorialbot]

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.13824503

[danielskatz]

@ekiefl - I'll go ahead and accept this, but wanted to point out a few things about the Zenodo archive:

1. The license is listed as CC-BY, rather than Apache-2, which I think it should be
2. Normally, JOSS would request that you change the metadata for the deposit in Zenodo (which you can do manually without creating a new deposit) so that the title matches the title of the paper, but given the fact that this was already accepted for pyOpenSci, this is not required.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1109/ssci44817.2019.9003085 is OK
- 10.1109/arso.2012.6213402 is OK
- 10.1109/tmech.2015.2461547 is OK
- 10.1109/mc.2008.33 is OK
- 10.1007/s41095-016-0047-3 is OK
- 10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.011 is OK
- 10.1007/s10489-023-04542-3 is OK
- 10.48550/arxiv.1511.07404 is OK
- 10.34627/rcc.v12iespecial.13 is OK
- 10.1109/cig.2019.8848113 is OK
- 10.1109/tciaig.2016.2549748 is OK
- 10.1609/aimag.v31i4.2312 is OK
- 10.1007/11922155_19 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.11642058 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Automatic Snooker-playing Robot with Speech Recogn...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Automating Skills Using a Robot Snooker Player
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Roboshark: A gantry pool player robot

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👋 @openjournals/csism-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#5929, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot accept

[editorialbot]

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Kiefl
  given-names: Evan
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6473-0921"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13824503
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Kiefl
    given-names: Evan
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6473-0921"
  date-published: 2024-09-28
  doi: 10.21105/joss.07301
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 101
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 7301
  title: "Pooltool: A Python package for realistic billiards simulation"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07301"
  volume: 9
title: "Pooltool: A Python package for realistic billiards simulation"

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

[editorialbot]

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

[editorialbot]

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.07301 joss-papers#5930
1. Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07301
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

[danielskatz]

👋 @ekiefl (Evan Kiefl) - Congratulations on your JOSS paper publication (associated with the previous pyOpenSci acceptance of your package)!

[editorialbot]

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07301/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07301)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07301">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07301/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07301/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07301

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

• Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

[ekiefl]

Thank you @danielskatz! This is amazing news and something I've been working towards for quite some time! Thanks for all your help in making it happen.

I've updated the Zenodo metadata to match the title.