[PRE REVIEW]: UFig: The ultra-fast image generator

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @silvanfischbacher (Silvan Fischbacher)
Repository: https://gitlab.com/cosmology-ethz/ufig
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @JBorrow
Reviewers: @rmjarvis, @ismael-mendoza
Managing EiC: Warrick Ball

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/356ce7c807dfab0cb61930bea4a931a0"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/356ce7c807dfab0cb61930bea4a931a0/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/356ce7c807dfab0cb61930bea4a931a0/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/356ce7c807dfab0cb61930bea4a931a0)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @silvanfischbacher. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@silvanfischbacher if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, 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 1.98  T=0.28 s (456.5 files/s, 434020.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Text                             9              4              0         100618
Python                          89           2949           2459          10121
Jupyter Notebook                 4              0            810            592
TeX                              1              2              0            431
Markdown                         3             80              5            363
reStructuredText                14            238            452            239
make                             2             33              6            158
YAML                             3             15              2            137
TOML                             1              9              6             72
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           126           3330           3740         112731
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   248	Jörg Herbel
   134	Tomasz Kacprzak
    97	tomaszkacprzak
    65	Silvan Fischbacher
    43	tomaszk
    34	moserb
    34	silvanf
    20	Beatrice Moser
    15	Uwe Schmitt
     1	Beatrice
     1	DZuercher
     1	Dominik Zuercher
     1	Luca Tortorelli

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.ascom.2013.01.001 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2412.08701 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2412.08722 is OK
- 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/08/035 is OK
- 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/07/054 is OK
- 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/09/048 is OK
- 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/12/013 is OK
- 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/11/035 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.082003 is OK
- 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/05/049 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.1145/2833157.2833162 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01298 is OK
- 10.1051/aas:1996164 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361:20031117 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.02.002 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16598.x is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21095.x is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv781 is OK
- 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/25 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/01/033 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevX.12.031029 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1912789117 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/73 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python
- No DOI given, and none found for title: imSim: GalSim-based Rubin Observatory Image Simula...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: SkyMaker: astronomical image simulations made easy...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Forward modeling for gravitational lensing in cosm...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

⚠️ Wordcount for paper.md is 1787

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

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

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

AstroPaint: A Python Package for Painting Halo Catalogs into Celestial Maps
Submitting author: @syasini
Handling editor: @harpolea (Retired)
Reviewers: @AshKelly, @zpace
Similarity score: 0.7084

pysersic: A Python package for determining galaxy structural properties via Bayesian inference, accelerated with jax
Submitting author: @prappleizer
Handling editor: @eloisabentivegna (Retired)
Reviewers: @AstroBarker, @JBorrow
Similarity score: 0.7079

deeplenstronomy: A dataset simulation package for strong gravitational lensing
Submitting author: @rmorgan10
Handling editor: @pdebuyl (Active)
Reviewers: @shreyasbapat, @jiwoncpark
Similarity score: 0.7045

21cmFAST v3: A Python-integrated C code for generating 3D realizations of the cosmic 21cm signal.
Submitting author: @steven-murray
Handling editor: @dfm (Active)
Reviewers: @sambit-giri, @sultan-hassan
Similarity score: 0.7028

SIMIO-continuum: Connecting simulations to ALMA observations
Submitting author: @nicokurtovic
Handling editor: @ivastar (Active)
Reviewers: @adeleplunkett, @jeffjennings
Similarity score: 0.6972

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[warrickball]

Hi @silvanfischbacher, thanks for your submissions to JOSS and my apologies for taking so long to initiate the pre-review.

Because this is a co-publication, for this submission and GalSBI I'm going to ask the editorial board to consider whether the implementation of the software itself reflects a substantial scientific effort, as indicated in our docs. This should take a week or two. Sorry for the further delay!

[warrickball]

@editorialbot query scope

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[silvanfischbacher]

Hi @warrickball,

Thank you for your message and for initiating the pre-review process.

Here are some comments on why we believe UFig v1 meets JOSS's requirements for substantial scientific effort:

• The first paper describing UFig was published over 10 years ago, and since then, many contributors have worked on developing and improving the software into what it is today. This includes new features, as well as speed and memory optimizations.

• The latest science paper didn’t focus on the development of UFig, and many contributors to the current version aren’t even authors on that paper. I only mentioned it to provide context on its most recent scientific application. However, I wouldn’t consider our latest science paper and the UFig v1 release a co-publication.

Please let me know if further clarification is needed!