[REVIEW]: Satisfiability.jl: Satisfiability Modulo Theories in Julia #6757

editorialbot · 2024-05-16T14:17:47Z

Submitting author: @elsoroka (Emiko Soroka)
Repository: https://github.com/elsoroka/Satisfiability.jl
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-paper
Version: 0.2.0
Editor: @diehlpk
Reviewers: @rafaelbailo, @dpsanders, @computablee
Archive: 10.6084/m9.figshare.26768461

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/68f75b3e24424e344dbb80af79dcab4b"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/68f75b3e24424e344dbb80af79dcab4b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/68f75b3e24424e344dbb80af79dcab4b/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/68f75b3e24424e344dbb80af79dcab4b)

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

@rafaelbailo & @dpsanders & @computablee, 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 @diehlpk 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 @rafaelbailo

📝 Checklist for @computablee

📝 Checklist for @dpsanders

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

editorialbot · 2024-05-16T14:17:51Z

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 · 2024-05-16T14:18:13Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.05 s (1492.7 files/s, 139966.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                           31            750           1116           2470
Markdown                        16            229              0            834
TeX                              6             31             29            336
Lisp                             3             63              0            310
YAML                             5              6             12            108
JSON                             1              0              0             30
Bourne Shell                     3              4              0             21
TOML                             2              4              0             14
Dockerfile                       1              2              0              7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            68           1089           1157           4130
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   232	Emiko Soroka
     2	dependabot[bot]
     1	Mykel Kochenderfer
     1	Thomas Schmelzer

editorialbot · 2024-05-16T14:18:19Z

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1299

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot · 2024-05-16T14:18:21Z

License info:

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

editorialbot · 2024-05-16T14:19:20Z

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

editorialbot · 2024-05-16T14:19:42Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.48550/arXiv.1410.4821 is OK
- 10.1007/s12532-023-00239-3 is OK
- 10.1145/1995376.1995394 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-81688-9_9 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_24 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-99524-9_24 is OK
- 10.3233/SAT190039 is OK
- 10.1145/3136000.3136004 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-031-24950-1_5 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-031-24950-1_12 is OK
- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-80223-3_26 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: The calculus of computation: decision procedures w...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Decision procedures
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PySMT: a solver-agnostic library for fast prototyp...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PicoSAT.jl
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The SMT-LIB Standard: Version 2.6

INVALID DOIs

- None

rafaelbailo · 2024-05-16T14:21:39Z

Review checklist for @rafaelbailo

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/elsoroka/Satisfiability.jl?
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 (@elsoroka) 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?

computablee · 2024-05-16T14:34:06Z

Review checklist for @computablee

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/elsoroka/Satisfiability.jl?
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 (@elsoroka) 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?

diehlpk · 2024-05-31T15:33:39Z

Hi @rafaelbailo, @dpsanders, @computablee how is your review going?

computablee · 2024-05-31T15:45:38Z

@diehlpk I was just taking a look at this a couple days ago. Things have been very busy with work, but if all goes well I should be able to get a lot of review stuff done this weekend.

rafaelbailo · 2024-06-07T15:53:44Z

Hi @diehlpk, I've just posted my review in a separate issue. Thanks for your patience!

computablee · 2024-06-10T07:04:45Z

Hello @diehlpk! Sorry for the late review, but I've checked most of the boxes and opened an issue over here with my full review.

diehlpk · 2024-06-18T14:13:22Z

Hi @rafaelbailo how is your review going?

rafaelbailo · 2024-06-18T14:41:00Z

Hi @diehlpk, @elsoroka has began work addressing my comments in the review issue.

diehlpk · 2024-06-28T17:10:57Z

Hi @elsoroka please let me know when you have done the changes.

elsoroka · 2024-07-02T03:10:53Z

Hi @diehlpk apologies for the delay; I started a new internship a couple weeks ago and haven't had much time. I am targeting end of this week to make the changes because we have a couple days off for the holiday.

dpsanders · 2024-07-04T23:53:35Z

Review checklist for @dpsanders

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/elsoroka/Satisfiability.jl?
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 (@elsoroka) 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?

dpsanders · 2024-07-06T23:12:17Z

Apologies for the delay in my review. Here are some observations.

This is a very nice package, providing key functionality for the Julia ecosystem. The documentation is very well done, with nice motivating examples.

The package looks for a command-line z3 function. This should ideally be provided instead via BinaryBuilder. (E.g. Z3.jl does this.)
Does the command-line interface work on Windows?
On MacOS brew install z3 should work (assuming the user has Homebrew installed) to install Z3.
Why is the function called sat! instead of sat? It's not clear what it's mutating.
I suggest to add a simple usage example to the paper. This would help focus the reader's understanding of the functionality and API of the package.
There doesn’t seem to be any API documentation.
There don’t seem to be any contribution guidelines.

Overall this is a very nice piece of work!

rafaelbailo · 2024-07-15T07:51:48Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-07-15T07:53:10Z

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

rafaelbailo · 2024-07-15T08:14:43Z

Hi @diehlpk, all my queries have been satisfied, and I've ticked all the items on my checklist. As far as I'm concerned, the paper is good to go 👍🏻 .

editorialbot · 2024-08-19T12:07:18Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.48550/arXiv.1410.4821 is OK
- 10.1007/s12532-023-00239-3 is OK
- 10.1145/1995376.1995394 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-81688-9_9 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_24 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-99524-9_24 is OK
- 10.3233/SAT190039 is OK
- 10.1145/3136000.3136004 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-031-24950-1_5 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-031-24950-1_12 is OK
- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-80223-3_26 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: The calculus of computation: decision procedures w...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Decision procedures
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PySMT: a solver-agnostic library for fast prototyp...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PicoSAT.jl
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The SMT-LIB Standard: Version 2.6

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-08-19T12:08:40Z

👋 @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#5781, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz · 2024-08-19T12:28:11Z

As track editor, I'll next proofread this and provide further instructions, if any are needed, probably in the next 12 or so hours.

danielskatz · 2024-08-19T15:58:52Z

@elsoroka - I just found 2 small changes needed in the references, as indicated in elsoroka/Satisfiability.jl#66

Please merge this, or let me now what you disagree with, then we can finish the publication process.

elsoroka · 2024-08-20T05:29:28Z

@danielskatz Thank you for catching that! I merged it in

danielskatz · 2024-08-20T11:51:53Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

generating new proof - will check again and hopefully complete in a couple of hours...

editorialbot · 2024-08-20T11:51:55Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-08-20T11:52:20Z

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.48550/arXiv.1410.4821 is OK
- 10.1007/s12532-023-00239-3 is OK
- 10.1145/1995376.1995394 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-81688-9_9 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_24 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-99524-9_24 is OK
- 10.3233/SAT190039 is OK
- 10.1145/3136000.3136004 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-031-24950-1_5 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-031-24950-1_12 is OK
- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-80223-3_26 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: The calculus of computation: decision procedures w...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Decision procedures
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PySMT: a solver-agnostic library for fast prototyp...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PicoSAT.jl
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The SMT-LIB Standard: Version 2.6

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-08-20T11:53:25Z

👋 @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#5784, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz · 2024-08-20T13:06:57Z

👋 @elsoroka - the changes I made in the PR didn't make it in to this proof, I think because I was working in your main branch but this review thread is working in joss-paper. Should JOSS be working in main now? If so, we can change this thread to point to main. If not, can you make the same two changes in the joss-paper branch?

elsoroka · 2024-08-20T14:35:39Z

Hi @danielskatz - to solve this, I merged the changes from main into joss-paper. So now the two branches should be in sync elsoroka/Satisfiability.jl@main...joss-paper.
I think it's fine to work off either (I don't know the best practice). I do note that the previous changes before the bibliography edit were merged into main, so they made it into the software archive.

danielskatz · 2024-08-20T14:40:44Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-08-20T14:40:46Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-08-20T14:41:18Z

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.48550/arXiv.1410.4821 is OK
- 10.1007/s12532-023-00239-3 is OK
- 10.1145/1995376.1995394 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-81688-9_9 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_24 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-99524-9_24 is OK
- 10.3233/SAT190039 is OK
- 10.1145/3136000.3136004 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-031-24950-1_5 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-031-24950-1_12 is OK
- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-80223-3_26 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: The calculus of computation: decision procedures w...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Decision procedures
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PySMT: a solver-agnostic library for fast prototyp...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PicoSAT.jl
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The SMT-LIB Standard: Version 2.6

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-08-20T14:42:41Z

👋 @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#5786, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz · 2024-08-20T14:44:46Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2024-08-20T14:44:49Z

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

editorialbot · 2024-08-20T14:51:27Z

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: Soroka
  given-names: Emiko
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0001-2710-469X"
- family-names: Kochenderfer
  given-names: Mykel J.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7238-9663"
- family-names: Lall
  given-names: Sanjay
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1783-5309"
contact:
- family-names: Soroka
  given-names: Emiko
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0001-2710-469X"
- family-names: Kochenderfer
  given-names: Mykel J.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7238-9663"
- family-names: Lall
  given-names: Sanjay
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1783-5309"
doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.26768461
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Soroka
    given-names: Emiko
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0001-2710-469X"
  - family-names: Kochenderfer
    given-names: Mykel J.
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7238-9663"
  - family-names: Lall
    given-names: Sanjay
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1783-5309"
  date-published: 2024-08-20
  doi: 10.21105/joss.06757
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 100
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 6757
  title: "Satisfiability.jl: Satisfiability Modulo Theories in Julia"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06757"
  volume: 9
title: "Satisfiability.jl: Satisfiability Modulo Theories in Julia"

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 · 2024-08-20T14:51:30Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2024-08-20T14:51:31Z

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

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.06757 joss-papers#5787
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06757
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

rafaelbailo · 2024-08-20T15:00:46Z

Congratulations to the authors, and thank you everyone for your hard work! 🎉🎊

computablee · 2024-08-20T15:02:13Z

Congratulations on the publication!

danielskatz · 2024-08-20T15:03:55Z

Congratulations to @elsoroka (Emiko Soroka) and co-authors on your publication!!

And thanks to @rafaelbailo, @dpsanders, and @computablee for reviewing, and to @diehlpk for editing!
JOSS depends on volunteers and we couldn't do this without you

editorialbot · 2024-08-20T15:03:57Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.06757/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06757)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06757">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06757/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06757/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06757

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

elsoroka · 2024-08-26T14:42:41Z

Thank you everyone for your help reviewing and editing and congratulations to co-authors @mykelk and @sanjaylall!

dpsanders · 2024-08-26T23:38:02Z

Congratulations to the authors for their nice work and paper!

editorialbot added Julia review Shell TeX Track: 7 (CSISM) Computer science, Information Science, and Mathematics labels May 16, 2024

editorialbot assigned diehlpk May 16, 2024

editorialbot mentioned this issue May 16, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: Satisfiability.jl: Satisfiability Modulo Theories in Julia #6550

Closed

rafaelbailo mentioned this issue Jun 7, 2024

JOSS Review Comments elsoroka/Satisfiability.jl#49

Closed

12 tasks

computablee mentioned this issue Jun 10, 2024

JOSS Review Comments elsoroka/Satisfiability.jl#50

Closed

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Aug 19, 2024

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Aug 20, 2024

danielskatz closed this as completed Aug 20, 2024

[REVIEW]: Satisfiability.jl: Satisfiability Modulo Theories in Julia #6757

[REVIEW]: Satisfiability.jl: Satisfiability Modulo Theories in Julia #6757

Comments

editorialbot commented May 16, 2024 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented May 16, 2024

editorialbot commented May 16, 2024

editorialbot commented May 16, 2024

editorialbot commented May 16, 2024

editorialbot commented May 16, 2024

editorialbot commented May 16, 2024

rafaelbailo commented May 16, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @rafaelbailo

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

computablee commented May 16, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @computablee

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

diehlpk commented May 31, 2024

computablee commented May 31, 2024 • edited Loading

rafaelbailo commented Jun 7, 2024

computablee commented Jun 10, 2024

diehlpk commented Jun 18, 2024

rafaelbailo commented Jun 18, 2024

diehlpk commented Jun 28, 2024

elsoroka commented Jul 2, 2024

dpsanders commented Jul 4, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @dpsanders

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

dpsanders commented Jul 6, 2024

rafaelbailo commented Jul 15, 2024

editorialbot commented Jul 15, 2024

rafaelbailo commented Jul 15, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 19, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 19, 2024

danielskatz commented Aug 19, 2024

danielskatz commented Aug 19, 2024

elsoroka commented Aug 20, 2024

danielskatz commented Aug 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 20, 2024

danielskatz commented Aug 20, 2024

elsoroka commented Aug 20, 2024 • edited Loading

danielskatz commented Aug 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 20, 2024

danielskatz commented Aug 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 20, 2024

rafaelbailo commented Aug 20, 2024

computablee commented Aug 20, 2024

danielskatz commented Aug 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 20, 2024

elsoroka commented Aug 26, 2024

dpsanders commented Aug 26, 2024

editorialbot commented May 16, 2024 •

edited

Loading

rafaelbailo commented May 16, 2024 •

edited

Loading

computablee commented May 16, 2024 •

edited

Loading

computablee commented May 31, 2024 •

edited

Loading

dpsanders commented Jul 4, 2024 •

edited

Loading

elsoroka commented Aug 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading