THzTools submission

[jsdodge]

Submitting Author: Name (@jsdodge)
All current maintainers: (@jsdodge)
Package Name: THzTools
Data analysis software tools for terahertz time-domain spectroscopy (THz-TDS)
Repository Link: https://github.com/dodge-research-group/thztools
Version submitted: 0.5.3
EiC: @cmarmo
Editor:@banesullivan
Reviewer 1: @frank1010111
Reviewer 2: @Romain-Peretti
Archive: TBD
JOSS DOI: TBD
Version accepted: TBD
Date accepted (month/day/year): TBD

---

Code of Conduct & Commitment to Maintain Package

• I agree to abide by pyOpenSci's Code of Conduct during the review process and in maintaining my package after should it be accepted.
• I have read and will commit to package maintenance after the review as per the pyOpenSci Policies Guidelines.

Description

• Include a brief paragraph describing what your package does:

THzTools provides tools to simplify and improve procedures for data analysis in terahertz time-domain spectroscopy (THz-TDS). Some of the methods included in the package were described previously in the paper at this link. As the name suggests, terahertz time-domain spectroscopy involves measurements of terahertz-frequency electromagnetic waveforms that are are acquired as a function of time. A variety of methods exist to transform these measurements into functions of frequency, but the standard procedures have several pitfalls. THzTools provides software tools that make it easier for researchers to use the best available methods for analyzing their data.

Scope

• Please indicate which category or categories.
  Check out our package scope page to learn more about our
  scope. (If you are unsure of which category you fit, we suggest you make a pre-submission inquiry):

  • Data retrieval
  • Data extraction
  • Data processing/munging
  • Data deposition
  • Data validation and testing
  • Data visualization¹
  • Workflow automation
  • Citation management and bibliometrics
  • Scientific software wrappers
  • Database interoperability

Domain Specific

• Geospatial
• Education

Community Partnerships

If your package is associated with an
existing community please check below:

• Astropy:My package adheres to Astropy community standards
• Pangeo: My package adheres to the Pangeo standards listed in the pyOpenSci peer review guidebook

• For all submissions, explain how and why the package falls under the categories you indicated above. In your explanation, please address the following points (briefly, 1-2 sentences for each):

  • Who is the target audience and what are scientific applications of this package?
    The target audience is researchers working with THz-TDS, although the procedures may be useful in other areas that use time-domain measurement systems. The package is designed for characterizing the time-domain noise performance of THz-TDS measurement systems and for analyzing the results from these systems in the frequency domain.

  • Are there other Python packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ?
    The Fit-TDS package provides a graphical user interface that simplifies THz-TDS data analysis with standard analysis methods. THzTools focuses on lower-level statistical procedures, and implements algorithms that are not available in Fit-TDS.

  • If you made a pre-submission enquiry, please paste the link to the corresponding issue, forum post, or other discussion, or @tag the editor you contacted: @NickleDave

Technical checks

For details about the pyOpenSci packaging requirements, see our packaging guide. Confirm each of the following by checking the box. This package:

• does not violate the Terms of Service of any service it interacts with.
• uses an OSI approved license.
• contains a README with instructions for installing the development version.
• includes documentation with examples for all functions.
• contains a tutorial with examples of its essential functions and uses.
• has a test suite.
• has continuous integration setup, such as GitHub Actions CircleCI, and/or others.

Publication Options

• Do you wish to automatically submit to the Journal of Open Source Software? If so:

JOSS Checks

• The package has an obvious research application according to JOSS's definition in their submission requirements. Be aware that completing the pyOpenSci review process does not guarantee acceptance to JOSS. Be sure to read their submission requirements (linked above) if you are interested in submitting to JOSS.
• The package is not a "minor utility" as defined by JOSS's submission requirements: "Minor ‘utility’ packages, including ‘thin’ API clients, are not acceptable." pyOpenSci welcomes these packages under "Data Retrieval", but JOSS has slightly different criteria.
• The package contains a paper.md matching JOSS's requirements with a high-level description in the package root or in inst/.
• The package is deposited in a long-term repository with the DOI: https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.10100093

Note: JOSS accepts our review as theirs. You will NOT need to go through another full review. JOSS will only review your paper.md file. Be sure to link to this pyOpenSci issue when a JOSS issue is opened for your package. Also be sure to tell the JOSS editor that this is a pyOpenSci reviewed package once you reach this step.

Are you OK with Reviewers Submitting Issues and/or pull requests to your Repo Directly?

This option will allow reviewers to open smaller issues that can then be linked to PR's rather than submitting a more dense text based review. It will also allow you to demonstrate addressing the issue via PR links.

• Yes I am OK with reviewers submitting requested changes as issues to my repo. Reviewers will then link to the issues in their submitted review.

Confirm each of the following by checking the box.

• I have read the author guide.
• I expect to maintain this package for at least 2 years and can help find a replacement for the maintainer (team) if needed.

Please fill out our survey

• Last but not least please fill out our pre-review survey. This helps us track
  submission and improve our peer review process. We will also ask our reviewers
  and editors to fill this out.

P.S. Have feedback/comments about our review process? Leave a comment here

Editor and Review Templates

The editor template can be found here.

The review template can be found here.

Footnotes

1. Please fill out a pre-submission inquiry before submitting a data visualization package. ↩

[cmarmo]

Hello @jsdodge ! Thank you for submitting THzTools to pyOpenSci.
Sorry for the delay of my answer!
I'm Chiara and I'm going to take care of your submission for the initial editorial checks.
I will be back to you by the end of the week.
Thanks for your patience!

[jsdodge]

Hi Chiara,

Thanks for the update on the timeline. Do you have any suggestions for ways that we can continue development without disrupting the review? Would it be ok, for example, to continue developing on the dev branch as long as we don't merge these into the main branch?

[cmarmo]

Do you have any suggestions for ways that we can continue development without disrupting the review? Would it be ok, for example, to continue developing on the dev branch as long as we don't merge these into the main branch?

I'm starting the editorial checks right now: I can perform them on the main branch if you prefer, once we agree on a version to be submitted you can tag the last modifications and we can update the description of the issue. Would that be ok for you?

[cmarmo]

Editor in Chief checks

Hi @jsdodge ! Thank you again for submitting your package for pyOpenSci review.
Below are the basic checks that your package needs to pass to begin our review.
If some of these are missing, we will ask you to work on them before the review process begins.

Please check our Python packaging guide for more information on the elements
below.

• Installation The package can be installed from a community repository such as PyPI (preferred), and/or a community channel on conda (e.g. conda-forge, bioconda).
  • The package imports properly into a standard Python environment import package.
• Fit The package meets criteria for fit and overlap.
• Documentation The package has sufficient online documentation to allow us to evaluate package function and scope without installing the package. This includes:
  • User-facing documentation that overviews how to install and start using the package.
  • Short tutorials that help a user understand how to use the package and what it can do for them.
  • API documentation (documentation for your code's functions, classes, methods and attributes): this includes clearly written docstrings with variables defined using a standard docstring format.
• Core GitHub repository Files
  • README The package has a README.md file with clear explanation of what the package does, instructions on how to install it, and a link to development instructions.
  • Contributing File The package has a CONTRIBUTING.md file that details how to install and contribute to the package.
  • Code of Conduct The package has a CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md file.
  • License The package has an OSI approved license.
    NOTE: We prefer that you have development instructions in your documentation too.
• Issue Submission Documentation All of the information is filled out in the YAML header of the issue (located at the top of the issue template).
• Automated tests Package has a testing suite and is tested via a Continuous Integration service.
• Repository The repository link resolves correctly.
• Package overlap The package doesn't entirely overlap with the functionality of other packages that have already been submitted to pyOpenSci.
• Archive (JOSS only, may be post-review): The repository DOI resolves correctly.
• Version (JOSS only, may be post-review): Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.0)?

---

• Initial onboarding survey was filled out
  We appreciate each maintainer of the package filling out this survey individually. 🙌
  Thank you authors in advance for setting aside five to ten minutes to do this. It truly helps our organization. 🙌

---

---

Editor comments

THzTools is in excellent shape, congratulations!
I have some minor comments before starting looking for an editor:

• in the README.md file installation and development instructions are missing: a simple pip install and/or conda install will be enough (this explicits the fact that the package is available from both the channels), and then links to installation and development pages in the documentation.
• the CONTRIBUTING.md file is missing: do you mind adding it with some basic instructions and a link to the contribuuting section in the documentation?
• I noticed that in the issue template for bug reports the explanation says "help us improve SciPy" ... 😁

Do you have any suggestions for ways that we can continue development without disrupting the review? Would it be ok, for example, to continue developing on the dev branch as long as we don't merge these into the main branch?

I'm starting the editorial checks right now: I can perform them on the main branch if you prefer, once we agree on a version to be submitted you can tag the last modifications and we can update the description of the issue. Would that be ok for you?

I realize my answer was a bit out of scope... sorry for that. Indeed, I believe it is a good idea to continue the development in a separate branch during review: however, reviewers might ask for modifications too and everything would in principle end in a new version accepted at the end of the review process. Please just clarify with reviewers in which branch you are addressing their comments, we had some misunderstanding in the past.

[jsdodge]

Hi Chiara,

Thanks! We can add installation instructions to the README.md file and change the issue template right away. This raises a similar question to my earlier one: should we do this in the main branch? Normally we would also bump the version number when making changes in main, but the submission version is listed as v0.5.0.

Regarding the CONTRIBUTING.md file, we have a contributing.rst file in /docs/source/. Could you recommend a way to include this information at the top level in a CONTRIBUTING.md file and in the documentation without duplicating it? A related question is whether we can do the same thing with the CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md file. Currently we just have a GitHub link to CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md in contributing.rst, but it would be better to include it directly in the documentation. We used a link because we didn't know how to use ReST to pull it into the documentation source.

[cmarmo]

Thanks! We can add installation instructions to the README.md file and change the issue template right away. This raises a similar question to my earlier one: should we do this in the main branch? Normally we would also bump the version number when making changes in main, but the submission version is listed as v0.5.0.

Technically the review is not started yet: once done with the changes we can edit the issue description.

Regarding the CONTRIBUTING.md file, we have a contributing.rst file in /docs/source/. Could you recommend a way to include this information at the top level in a CONTRIBUTING.md file and in the documentation without duplicating it?

Some general information would be enough in the CONTRIBUTING.md file: a link to contributing.rst there will complete the instructions. See for example what is done in one of the previously accepted packages.

A related question is whether we can do the same thing with the CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md file. Currently we just have a GitHub link to CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md in contributing.rst, but it would be better to include it directly in the documentation. We used a link because we didn't know how to use ReST to pull it into the documentation source.

Your solution is fine with our standards: if you prefer to have the code of conduct in the documentation then you can use the same approach suggested for the CONTRIBUTING.md file and link the documentation reference inside.

[jsdodge]

I just released THzTools v0.5.1 with the changes that you requested. I've also updated the version number in the submission documentation.

[cmarmo]

Thank you @jsdodge ! Time for me to look for an editor!

[jsdodge]

Hi @cmarmo, I have just updated the submission with the latest release, v0.5.2.

Could you please update me on the editor search?

[cmarmo]

Thank you @jsdodge for the follow-up

Could you please update me on the editor search?

I'm sorry to say that I am still looking... I guess the end of summer plus the beginning of the academic year are not making things easier.... thanks for your patience!

[lwasser]

@cmarmo thank you so much for leading the pre-checks for this package!! @jsdodge we just have had a rotation for our EiC (we do this every 3 months). To help us get caught up, I was able to find an editor from our team to take on this package! @banesullivan !! The next step here is to find reviewers. Do you have any reviewers in mind that we could reach out to? This area if quite specific and we'd like to have atleast one person with domain expertise, involved in the review. many thanks for your patience!

[jsdodge]

Thanks @lwasser ! And hello @banesullivan . We look forward to working with you on the review.

Would it be possible for us to contact potential reviewers privately before suggesting them to you? I'm hesitant to list people publicly here without consulting them first.

[lwasser]

@jsdodge of course. I think reaching out to them privately is ideal. Normally we allow one suggestion from the author(s) and then we will try to find a second. The second reviewer can be more generally focused on packaging/usability. Finding reviewers has taken some time lately.

[jsdodge]

Hi @lwasser and @banesullivan , Romain Peretti (ORCID) has kindly agreed to help with the review. He leads the @THzbiophotonics group at CNRS in Lille, France. Please let me know if you need further help with the review.

[lwasser]

@jsdodge this is great. I'll leave a few notes and then will let @banesullivan step in. We may have a second reviewer. In the meantime, does Romain have a GitHub handle so we can add them to this issue? The review will happen fully in this issue with links to any issues or pr's opened of course!

[jsdodge]

Thank you, @lwasser , I'm glad that you may have found a second reviewer. I believe that Romain's GitHub handle is @THzbiophotonics, but I'll check.

[jsdodge]

Hello, please use the GitHub handle @Romain-Peretti for Romain. Thanks!

[lwasser]

ok fantastic.
✅ we have two reviewers now assigned to this issue. @frank1010111 and @Romain-Peretti
I believe we are at this step in the review process and @banesullivan can take the review forward from here!! Bane can you please onboard the reviewers and kick things off?

Thank you all. Please let me know if i can be helpful moving forward!

[banesullivan]

👋 Hi @frank1010111 and @Romain-Peretti! Thank you for volunteering to review THzTools for pyOpenSci! I'm excited to kick off this review and I'll try to chime in with a few comments of my own but overall THzTools is looking in great shape -- wonderful work, @jsdodge!

Please fill out our pre-review survey

Before beginning your review, please fill out our pre-review survey. This helps us improve all aspects of our review and better understand our community. No personal data will be shared from this survey - it will only be used in an aggregated format by our Executive Director to improve our processes and programs.

• @frank1010111 survey completed.
• @Romain-Peretti survey completed.

The following resources will help you complete your review:

1. Here is the reviewers guide. This guide contains all of the steps and information needed to complete your review.
2. Here is the review template that you will need to fill out and submit
   here as a comment, once your review is complete.

Please get in touch with any questions or concerns!

Your review is due: November ~8th, 2024

I've set the due date ~3 weeks out from now, but we're flexible here so please don't rush yourself if life or other things pop up and require you to delay a bit.

---

Reviewers: @frank1010111 @Romain-Peretti
Due date: 2024-11-08

[frank1010111]

Package Review

Please check off boxes as applicable, and elaborate in comments below. Your review is not limited to these topics, as described in the reviewer guide

• As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (If you are unsure whether you are in conflict, please speak to your editor before starting your review).

Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

• A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience in README.
• Installation instructions: for the development version of the package and any non-standard dependencies in README.
• Vignette(s) demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally.
• Function Documentation: for all user-facing functions.
• Examples for all user-facing functions.
• Community guidelines including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING.
• Metadata including author(s), author e-mail(s), a url, and any other relevant metadata e.g., in a pyproject.toml file or elsewhere.

Readme file requirements
The package meets the readme requirements below:

• Package has a README.md file in the root directory.

The README should include, from top to bottom:

• The package name
• Badges for:
  • Continuous integration and test coverage,
  • Docs building (if you have a documentation website),
  • A repostatus.org badge,
  • Python versions supported,
  • Current package version (on PyPI / Conda).

NOTE: If the README has many more badges, you might want to consider using a table for badges: see this example. Such a table should be more wide than high. (Note that the a badge for pyOpenSci peer-review will be provided upon acceptance.)

• Short description of package goals.
• Package installation instructions
• Any additional setup required to use the package (authentication tokens, etc.)
• Descriptive links to all vignettes. If the package is small, there may only be a need for one vignette which could be placed in the README.md file.
  • Brief demonstration of package usage (as it makes sense - links to vignettes could also suffice here if package description is clear)
• Link to your documentation website.
• If applicable, how the package compares to other similar packages and/or how it relates to other packages in the scientific ecosystem.
• Citation information

Usability

Reviewers are encouraged to submit suggestions (or pull requests) that will improve the usability of the package as a whole.
Package structure should follow general community best-practices. In general please consider whether:

• Package documentation is clear and easy to find and use.
• The need for the package is clear
• All functions have documentation and associated examples for use
• The package is easy to install

Functionality

• Installation: Installation succeeds as documented.
• Functionality: Any functional claims of the software been confirmed.
• Performance: Any performance claims of the software been confirmed.
• Automated tests:
  • All tests pass on the reviewer's local machine for the package version submitted by the author. Ideally this should be a tagged version making it easy for reviewers to install.
  • Tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions.
• Continuous Integration: Has continuous integration setup (We suggest using Github actions but any CI platform is acceptable for review)
• Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the pyOpenSci packaging guidelines.
  A few notable highlights to look at:
  • Package supports modern versions of Python and not End of life versions.
  • Code format is standard throughout package and follows PEP 8 guidelines (CI tests for linting pass)

For packages also submitting to JOSS

• The package has an obvious research application according to JOSS's definition in their submission requirements.

Note: Be sure to check this carefully, as JOSS's submission requirements and scope differ from pyOpenSci's in terms of what types of packages are accepted.

The package contains a paper.md matching JOSS's requirements with:

• A short summary describing the high-level functionality of the software
• Authors: A list of authors with their affiliations
• A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience.
• References: With DOIs for all those that have one (e.g. papers, datasets, software).

Final approval (post-review)

• The author has responded to my review and made changes to my satisfaction. I recommend approving this package.

Estimated hours spent reviewing:

---

Review Comments

[jsdodge]

Hi @frank1010111 , thanks for your feedback so far. How would you like to proceed with the code updates? I've already addressed the issues that you posted, but just in my local dev branch. At what point would you recommend that I push these changes to the remote, merge them with the main branch, and create a new release? Should I wait for you to complete your review before doing any or all of these?

[frank1010111]

I appreciate it. If you want me to review the dev branch, I'm okay doing that. Whatever works best for you is good for me.

[jsdodge]

In that case, I merged the changes into the main branch and created a new release, THzTools v0.5.3 (beta). I also closed the issues that you raised. I see that there are several unchecked items, so I'll wait for further recommendations.