AOtools/aotools

AOtools Paper

matthewtownson opened this issue · 6 comments

matthewtownson commented

Hi all (@andrewpaulreeves @james-m-osborn @GillesOrban @ojdf),

I'm not sure I have up to date email addresses for everyone, so adding an issue to hopefully catch my out of date email addresses. Also let me know if I have forgotten someone I should have included.

I am hoping to submit the AOtools paper by the end of next week, if no-one has any major changes to make to the paper. If you don't have access then let me know an up to date email address so I can add you to edit the doc. AOtools_paper.pdf

Thanks,
Matt

GillesOrban commented
matthewtownson commented

Yes, the plan is to submit to optics express.

Would you prefer to have a proper look when you get back from holiday? We can delay submitting until the 16th August to give you time when you get back. Alternatively, if you are mostly happy I can make the changes you suggest and get it submitted sooner.

andrewpaulreeves commented

Hi All,

Thanks for putting this all together! It's looking good.

Some tweaks from me that I've made in the overleaf doc:
97: Note that dependencies are all standard tools
100: Added reference to being useful in FSOC. I added a ref but it doesn't seem to add it properly in the PDF - any ideas?

Throughout a few tweaks to typos, grammer, etc...

Figures + snippets - can the figures be joined somehow with their respective snippet? Even if they are together in the same PDF figure file so they are definitely together? I guess if they are seperate then its up to the editor how they are ultimately placed.

Other discussion point - 0.6 is still highlighted. Should a goal be to release v1 for this paper? I think we are happy with structure, and naming schemes, etc... so changes in the near future shouldn't be breaking, just adding stuff

Cheers,

Andrew

p.s. how does collaborative Overleaf work - are my changes flagged up to you somehow?

matthewtownson commented

Thanks for the updates to the paper, I have tracked changes turned on so we can see what is being updated.

Putting the snippets and figures together sounds like a good idea, I will get to work on that this week.

As for version number, I was hoping to call it v1.0 just before submission assuming no-one thinks there's anything major about to change (I don't think there is)

GillesOrban commented

Thanks Matthew.
No need to delay the submission for me. As I said, it looks good. If I have any other suggestion, I let you know.

matthewtownson commented

Congrats and thanks everyone for the hard work. Our paper can be found here.