[REVIEW]: NOMAD: A distributed web-based platform for managing materials science research data

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @markus1978 (Markus Scheidgen)
Repository: https://github.com/nomad-coe/nomad
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper
Version: v1.2.1
Editor: @zhubonan
Reviewers: @arosen93, @berquist, @sgbaird
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8366163

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5485aee97d291f2b545116d21c3b76c5"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5485aee97d291f2b545116d21c3b76c5/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5485aee97d291f2b545116d21c3b76c5/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5485aee97d291f2b545116d21c3b76c5)

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

@arosen93 & @berquist & @sgbaird, 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 @zhubonan 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 @berquist

📝 Checklist for @sgbaird

📝 Checklist for @arosen93

[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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.01 s (565.5 files/s, 48066.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Markdown                         2             19              0            191
TeX                              1             15              0            170
YAML                             1              1              4             18
Bourne Shell                     1              1              0              6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                             5             36              4            385
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1279

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-022-04501-x is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2205.14774 is OK
- 10.1038/s41597-021-00974-z is OK
- 10.1063/1.4812323 is OK
- 10.1007/s11837-013-0755-4 is OK
- 10.1016/j.commatsci.2012.02.005 is OK
- 10.1038/s41597-020-00638-4 is OK
- 10.1038/s41524-018-0107-6 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-648X/aa680e is OK
- 10.1107/S1600576714027575 is OK
- 10.1016/j.commatsci.2012.10.028 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1805.05039 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2018.53 is OK
- 10.1038/s41524-017-0048-5 is OK
- 10.1038/s41524-022-00935-z is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a valid open source license

[editorialbot]

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

[zhubonan]

Hi @arosen93, @berquist, @sgbaird - thanks for helping out reviewing this package. Please generate the checklists using

@editorialbot generate my checklist

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks, but please do let me know if any of you require some more time.

We can also use EditorialBot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

[sgbaird]

Review checklist for @sgbaird

I'm adding some comments here for my own convenience.

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/nomad-coe/nomad?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@markus1978) 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?
  • No, see JOSS Review: importing ArchiveQuery gives FileNotFoundError nomad-coe/nomad#68
• Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
  • Ideally, I'd like to test out the functionality for "publish", "explore", and "analyze" (as mentioned at https://nomad-lab.eu/nomad-lab/).
• Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)
  • I don't think the paper has any performance claims other than maybe "This public NOMAD service contains over 12 million individual materials science simulations and an increasing number of entries describing materials science experiments"

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • See https://nomad-lab.eu/nomad-lab/nomad.html
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
  • See https://github.com/nomad-coe/nomad/blob/develop/pyproject.toml and https://github.com/nomad-coe/nomad/blob/develop/requirements.txt, though the requirements seem a bit strict in terms of pinned dependencies. The package is available to download via PyPI, and the web app is easy to use
• Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
  • See https://nomad-lab.eu/nomad-lab/tutorials.html
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
  • Yes (see https://nomad-lab.eu/prod/v1/docs/index.html), but like @arosen93 mentioned, auto-generated API docs for the Python package would be nice to have
• Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
  • For example, see https://gitlab.mpcdf.mpg.de/nomad-lab/nomad-FAIR/-/pipelines/168086
• 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
  • On a high-level, yes, but these could use additional details. For ideas, here's an example of a PyScaffold default template for CONTRIBUTING.md, and here's an example of how I modified it for another project (incidentally, a published JOSS manuscript).

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?

Perhaps the bulleted lists of key features from https://nomad-lab.eu/nomad-lab/ (see image above) could be incorporated as three separate lists in the software paper.

[berquist]

Review checklist for @berquist

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/nomad-coe/nomad?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@markus1978) 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?

[zhubonan]

Hi @sgbaird @berquist and @arosen93 how is going reviewing the package?
I can see @arosen93 opened this issue here: nomad-coe/nomad#63.

BTW @sgbaird @berquist if you have comments on the package please also open issues on their GitHub page and mention this issues ticket, so they are linked together.

[Andrew-S-Rosen]

Thanks for the ping! I have it on my schedule to dig deeper into the code + paper this week :) Thanks for the patience, everyone!

[berquist]

I've read the paper and believe that NOMAD belongs in JOSS. I'm still distilling my notes on the (website) documentation and haven't tried installing/testing/running other than building the Docker image.

My current concerns are about the author list. How do I raise those concerns?

[zhubonan]

I've read the paper and believe that NOMAD belongs in JOSS. I'm still distilling my notes on the (website) documentation and haven't tried installing/testing/running other than building the Docker image.

👍

My current concerns are about the author list. How do I raise those concerns?

You can raise any concern here in this issue ticket. Note, that JOSS does allow authors other than the code contributors in the list.

[sgbaird]

I have it on my calendar and plan to finish my review by May 25 (graduation, moving, new job playing into it).

[Andrew-S-Rosen]

@zhubonan --- can you help with having @editorialbot make me a checklist?

[zhubonan]

Just type

@editorialbot generate my checklist

Then press the "Comment" button.

This should be able to trigger the editorial bot to generate one for you.

[Andrew-S-Rosen]

Review checklist for @arosen93

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/nomad-coe/nomad?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@markus1978) 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?

[Andrew-S-Rosen]

@markus1978 and @zhubonan:

Overview

I have finished my review of the code and paper. Overall, it is clear that the NOMAD code is well suited for JOSS and will be of significant interest to the computational materials science community at large. I am personally very excited about the code and am looking forward to use it in my work.

I have no comments about the paper, which is clearly written.

In terms of the checklist items, I have checked off most of them (see below for further details). However, I still think there are a few things that are worth improving on prior to acceptance of this work in JOSS. In general, there is a ton of code, and from a user or contributor standpoint, it's not immediately clear where to look for what in many cases. That accessibility for new users/contributors is the area that I think can be improved the most. It would be a shame if this enormous amount of work didn't end up being adopted outside the inner NOMAD sphere of users simply because of its scale.

Documentation

Navigating the Codebase

Overall, I find the codebase to be a bit challenging to navigate. There is the main nomad repository (which is mirrored on GitLab and GitHub) and then there's the many NOMAD-hosted packages that nomad relies on. For instance, as a user wanting to use the parsers, it's not clear to me based on the GitHub repo where to begin. Do I use the nomad repo? The atomistic-parsers? The electronic-parsers? Some conglomeration thereof? I ultimately figured it out but not without a lot of digging. There should be a clearer map of the various repos in the NOMAD-CoE workspace to help contributors and users.

API Documentation

The documentation for NOMAD itself is very clear, but I was left with many questions about how to use the nomad Python tools. There is a Python section in the documentation, but it's somewhat minimal given how large the codebase is as a whole. For instance, ideally I would like to see more detailed information about the various APIs, such as:

• The expected schemas for each code. It's nice to know what to expect before running the code itself.
• What input/output files are parsed for each computational chemistry/materials package.
• What versions of each computational chemistry/materials are supported?
• Documentation for all user-relevant functions and classes as well as their inputs and outputs, if there are any others than those already listed.

In general, I feel like there is a ton of code here but only a small fraction of it is made accessible to the user (especially prospective developers or code contributors) unless I am missing a section of the documentation.

Installation and Dependencies

Splitting up the Dependencies

From a usability standpoint, it's very difficult to incorporate the NOMAD suite into existing codebases due to the large number of dependencies, several of which are not necessarily actively maintained (and therefore will likely become increasingly difficult to incorporat with newer versions of Python and secondary dependencies). In particular, I can see many use cases where someone might want to use the parsing features of NOMAD but aren't necessarily looking to parse every plausible code supported by NOMAD. In this case, it would be nice to be able to install only the nomad-lab[parsing] dependencies that are necessary for the specific code(s) of interest. For instance, asr is only needed for Atomic Simulation Recipes, which most people aren't going to need. It would be very helpful and increase the usability of the code if additional "extras" could be provided that would break the parsing dependencies down into only those needed for either specific codes or types of codes.

Installation Woes

On the topic of dependencies, although I checked of "Does installation proceed as outlined," that is only strictly true once the issue I raised (nomad-coe/nomad#63) is resolved.

Unit Tests

For Developers

There are unit tests that are run on the GitLab mirror, but they aren't run on the GitHub repo where users can contribute PRs. So, from a contributor perspective, it's not clear from the README or documentation how to run the unit tests locally to test out code. Having to rely on monitoring the GitLab repo for test failures is a bit cumbersome for the user. Since I see a tests folder on GitHub, is it as simple as just doing pytest in that folder? If so, that should be added to the docs.

[sgbaird]

Just started tonight. I should have mine within a couple days. I already thought highly of NOMAD, and I'm more impressed as I learn more. Looking forward to this!

[markus1978]

@arosen93 Thank you very much for taking the time to review NOMAD and for all the very helpful feedback. We are already getting loads of ideas from this on how to improve the addressed points. I will reply with a longer response and an overview about how we are tackling these points, once all the reviews are in.

[editorialbot]

Done! version is now v1.2.1

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@zhubonan thanks for editing here. Note for the future, the repository version tag should be fully matched and is here v1.2.1 (so including the v). The ZENODO archive should then say Version v1.2.1 (since their word "version" should really say "version tag"). So I'll ask the authors to update the archive link to which says 1.2.1 at the moment.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@markus1978 I am the AEiC for this track and here to help process final steps. I have check this review, the repository, the archive link and the paper. Most seems in order but below are some minor points that needs your attention:

• Please update the ZENODO archive listed version to v1.2.1.
• You mention the authors are doing a final review. Please let me know when this is finished, so we can proceed here.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@zhubonan 👋

[zhubonan]

Ah I see. @markus1978 could you please update the zenodo version tag? Should be able to do so without reupload I think.

[zhubonan]

Or the alternative is to re-release with a 1.2.1 tag?

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@zhubonan sorry I meant to tag @markus1978. We'll wait for the authors now to make those changes.

[markus1978]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

• I comited a new version of the paper with spelling/grammar things, and one affiliation change.
• I updated the version on zenodo and added the "v".

I am sorry for the late changes to the paper, I hope this does not cause too many issues. But i think all the co-authors are now happy and we can proceed.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@markus1978 thanks for making those changes. I have some more minor points below:

• Since the acronym (ELN) is not used, you can remove it from the text.
• Check ... following the instruction ... which should perhaps be ... following the instructions ...
• Your text mentions: NOMAD Oasis can be used freely as per our OSI license..., I recommend that you actually mention the license you use (Apache 2.0).
• In fact, given the above two points I would recommend to rephrase the following sentence to target the above:
  NOMAD Oasis can be used freely as per our OSI license following the instruction in the [NOMAD documentation](https://nomad-lab.eu/docs).
  to something like:
  NOMAD Oasis can be used freely, is available open source under the [Apache License 2.0](https://github.com/nomad-coe/nomad/blob/develop/LICENSE), and detailed instructions are available in the [NOMAD documentation](https://nomad-lab.eu/docs).

[markus1978]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman thanks you very much for your suggestions. We now follow your suggestion for the last 3 points. For the first point, I would like to keep the acronym if possible. "ELN" is so prevalent in our community that for many readers "ELN" is more recognisable than "electronic lab notebook".

[zhubonan]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[zhubonan]

Thanks for making the changes. I think the use of ELN is probably OK here.
Pinging @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman again.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@markus1978 Apologies for the delay in processing this. Thanks for implementing those final changes. I'll now proceed to accept this work for JOSS.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@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:
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Scheidgen
  given-names: Markus
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8038-2277"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Himanen
  given-names: Lauri
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3130-8193"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Ladines
  given-names: Alvin Noe
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0077-2097"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Sikter
  given-names: David
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2102-7160"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Nakhaee
  given-names: Mohammad
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4146-0129"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Fekete
  given-names: Ádám
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6263-897X"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Chang
  given-names: Theodore
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4911-0230"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Golparvar
  given-names: Amir
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2412-6615"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Márquez
  given-names: José A.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8173-2566"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Brockhauser
  given-names: Sandor
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9700-4803"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Brückner
  given-names: Sebastian
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5969-847X"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Ghiringhelli
  given-names: Luca M.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5099-3029"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Dietrich
  given-names: Felix
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2906-1769"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Lehmberg
  given-names: Daniel
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4012-5014"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Denell
  given-names: Thea
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0000-7185-9363"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Albino
  given-names: Andrea
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9280-7431"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Näsström
  given-names: Hampus
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3264-1692"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Shabih
  given-names: Sherjeel
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6635-4465"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Dobener
  given-names: Florian
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1987-6224"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Kühbach
  given-names: Markus
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7117-5196"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Mozumder
  given-names: Rubel
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5926-6646"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Rudzinski
  given-names: Joseph F.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3403-640X"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Daelman
  given-names: Nathan
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7647-1816"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Pizarro
  given-names: José M.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6751-8192"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Kuban
  given-names: Martin
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1619-2460"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Salazar
  given-names: Cuauhtemoc
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9635-5062"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Ondračka
  given-names: Pavel
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0729-629X"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Bungartz
  given-names: Hans-Joachim
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0171-0712"
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Draxl
  given-names: Claudia
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3523-6657"
contact:
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Scheidgen
  given-names: Markus
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8038-2277"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8366163
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Scheidgen
    given-names: Markus
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8038-2277"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Himanen
    given-names: Lauri
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3130-8193"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Ladines
    given-names: Alvin Noe
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0077-2097"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Sikter
    given-names: David
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2102-7160"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Nakhaee
    given-names: Mohammad
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4146-0129"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Fekete
    given-names: Ádám
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6263-897X"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Chang
    given-names: Theodore
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4911-0230"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Golparvar
    given-names: Amir
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2412-6615"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Márquez
    given-names: José A.
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8173-2566"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Brockhauser
    given-names: Sandor
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9700-4803"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Brückner
    given-names: Sebastian
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5969-847X"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Ghiringhelli
    given-names: Luca M.
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5099-3029"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Dietrich
    given-names: Felix
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2906-1769"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Lehmberg
    given-names: Daniel
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4012-5014"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Denell
    given-names: Thea
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0000-7185-9363"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Albino
    given-names: Andrea
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9280-7431"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Näsström
    given-names: Hampus
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3264-1692"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Shabih
    given-names: Sherjeel
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6635-4465"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Dobener
    given-names: Florian
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1987-6224"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Kühbach
    given-names: Markus
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7117-5196"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Mozumder
    given-names: Rubel
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5926-6646"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Rudzinski
    given-names: Joseph F.
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3403-640X"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Daelman
    given-names: Nathan
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7647-1816"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Pizarro
    given-names: José M.
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6751-8192"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Kuban
    given-names: Martin
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1619-2460"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Salazar
    given-names: Cuauhtemoc
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9635-5062"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Ondračka
    given-names: Pavel
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0729-629X"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Bungartz
    given-names: Hans-Joachim
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0171-0712"
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Draxl
    given-names: Claudia
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3523-6657"
  date-published: 2023-10-15
  doi: 10.21105/joss.05388
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 90
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 5388
  title: "NOMAD: A distributed web-based platform for managing materials
    science research data"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05388"
  volume: 8
title: "NOMAD: A distributed web-based platform for managing materials
  science research data"

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.05388 joss-papers#4693
1. Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05388
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...

[markus1978]

@zhubonan @Andrew-S-Rosen @sgbaird @berquist @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman

I am very happy that the paper was accepted and published. Many thanks to all editors and reviewers.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@markus1978 congratulations on this publication in JOSS!

Thanks for editing @zhubonan!

And a special thank you to the reviewers: @arosen93, @berquist, @sgbaird

[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.05388/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05388)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05388">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05388/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05388/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05388

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

[zhubonan]

Congrats @markus1978, and thanks to you all helping this work through the process! @berquist @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman @Andrew-S-Rosen @sgbaird 🤝😆

[Pepe-Marquez]

Thank you very much to all the editors and reviewers! 🚀