---
# System prepended metadata

title: Pandemia notes 19/01/2023

---

# Pandemia notes 19/01/2023 

## Optimal use of time 

- [name=Aoife] I'd quite like to implement the disscussed optimisations and test 
- [name=Aoife] For usability, I feel the pygame interface could be reworked with maybe not too much effort
    - @Andy, did you do investigations into this, or could I spend a quick afternoon checking this out?
- [name=Aoife] Templating the creation of more testing and documentation 
    - [ ] Documentation for code (doc strings layout etc.)
    - [ ] e2e testing expansion 
- [name=Aoife] Testing outputs being too vague, what's the plan here or have we had movement on the issue?



## Targets if library was to be submitted to JOSS (or similar)

- https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#example-paper-and-bibliography Example of what a paper would need to look like for this. 
- Most likely, Andy and me wouldn't be able to contribute to this in the current time frame. 
- But if the below checks are met then it should be straight-forward for James to submit

#### General checks

- [ ] **License:** Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an [OSI approved](https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical) software license?
- [ ] **Contribution and authorship:** Has the submitting author 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](https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#substantial-scholarly-effort)
- [ ] **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](https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/policies.html?highlight=animal#joss-policies)? 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](https://pandoc.org/MANUAL.html#extension-citations)?
