astropy: A Community Python Library for Astronomy

[pllim]

Submitting Author: @pllim
All current maintainers: @astropy
Package Name: astropy
One-Line Description of Package: A Community Python Library for Astronomy
Repository Link: https://github.com/astropy/astropy
Version submitted: 7.1.0
EiC: @yeelauren
Editor: @crhea93
Reviewer 1: @adityapt
Reviewer 2: @egbdfX
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.17756022
Version accepted: 7.1.0
Date accepted (month/day/year): 12/17/2025

---

Code of Conduct & Commitment to Maintain Package

• I agree to abide by pyOpenSci's Code of Conduct during the review process and in maintaining my package after should it be accepted.
• I have read and will commit to package maintenance after the review as per the pyOpenSci Policies Guidelines.

Description

• Include a brief paragraph describing what your package does:

The Astropy Project is a community effort to develop a core package for astronomy using the Python programming language and improve usability, interoperability, and collaboration between astronomy Python packages. The core astropy package contains functionality aimed at professional astronomers and astrophysicists, but may be useful to anyone developing astronomy software. The Astropy Project also includes "affiliated packages," Python packages that are not necessarily developed by the core development team, but share the goals of Astropy, and often build from the core package's code and infrastructure.

Scope

• Please indicate which category or categories.
  Check out our package scope page to learn more about our
  scope. (If you are unsure of which category you fit, we suggest you make a pre-submission inquiry):

  • Data retrieval
  • Data extraction
  • Data processing/munging
  • Data deposition
  • Data validation and testing
  • Data visualization¹
  • Workflow automation
  • Citation management and bibliometrics
  • Scientific software wrappers (wcslib?)
  • Database interoperability

Domain Specific

• Geospatial
• Education

Community Partnerships

If your package is associated with an
existing community please check below:

• Astropy:My package adheres to Astropy community standards
• Pangeo: My package adheres to the Pangeo standards listed in the pyOpenSci peer review guidebook

• For all submissions, explain how and why the package falls under the categories you indicated above. In your explanation, please address the following points (briefly, 1-2 sentences for each):

  • Who is the target audience and what are scientific applications of this package? Target audience are people involved in astrophysics or astronomy who use Python. astropy is the core library that the Astropy Project builds upon.

  • Are there other Python packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ? No.

  • If you made a pre-submission enquiry, please paste the link to the corresponding issue, forum post, or other discussion, or @tag the editor you contacted:

Technical checks

For details about the pyOpenSci packaging requirements, see our packaging guide. Confirm each of the following by checking the box. This package:

• does not violate the Terms of Service of any service it interacts with.
• uses an OSI approved license.
• contains a README with instructions for installing the development version.
• includes documentation with examples for all functions.
• contains a tutorial with examples of its essential functions and uses.
• has a test suite.
• has continuous integration setup, such as GitHub Actions CircleCI, and/or others.

Publication Options

• Do you wish to automatically submit to the Journal of Open Source Software? If so:

JOSS Checks

• The package has an obvious research application according to JOSS's definition in their submission requirements. Be aware that completing the pyOpenSci review process does not guarantee acceptance to JOSS. Be sure to read their submission requirements (linked above) if you are interested in submitting to JOSS.
• The package is not a "minor utility" as defined by JOSS's submission requirements: "Minor ‘utility’ packages, including ‘thin’ API clients, are not acceptable." pyOpenSci welcomes these packages under "Data Retrieval", but JOSS has slightly different criteria.
• The package contains a paper.md matching JOSS's requirements with a high-level description in the package root or in inst/. (I can add that later; out of time today.)
• The package is deposited in a long-term repository with the DOI: https://zenodo.org/records/15473616

Note: JOSS accepts our review as theirs. You will NOT need to go through another full review. JOSS will only review your paper.md file. Be sure to link to this pyOpenSci issue when a JOSS issue is opened for your package. Also be sure to tell the JOSS editor that this is a pyOpenSci reviewed package once you reach this step.

Are you OK with Reviewers Submitting Issues and/or pull requests to your Repo Directly?

This option will allow reviewers to open smaller issues that can then be linked to PR's rather than submitting a more dense text based review. It will also allow you to demonstrate addressing the issue via PR links.

• Yes I am OK with reviewers submitting requested changes as issues to my repo. Reviewers will then link to the issues in their submitted review.

Confirm each of the following by checking the box.

• I have read the author guide.
• I expect to maintain this package for at least 2 years and can help find a replacement for the maintainer (team) if needed.

Please fill out our survey

• Last but not least please fill out our pre-review survey. This helps us track
  submission and improve our peer review process. We will also ask our reviewers
  and editors to fill this out. (I can fill this out later; out of time today.)

P.S. Have feedback/comments about our review process? Leave a comment here

Editor and Review Templates

The editor template can be found here.

The review template can be found here.

Footnotes

1. Please fill out a pre-submission inquiry before submitting a data visualization package. ↩

[pllim]

Note to self: sunpy did it here #147

Side discussion: #252

[lwasser]

This review is on pause while the community decides if they want to move forward! @eliotwrobson just letting you know !! i'll add a label

[eteq]

@lwasser - I think we want to move ahead with this review but just wanted to confirm a few things:

This package is of course a much larger package than most pyOpenSci reviews. We (the Astropy Coordination Committee) are guessing that the expected level of review is comparable to what sunpy got in #147 - i.e., a bit more high-level of a review and not e.g. expecting the reviewer to confirm every single public function has complete docstrings. Assuming that's what you're thinking as well we are happy to have the process continue. But we do not want to create undue burden on some poor reviewer or editor (nor on our own maintainers given they aren't necessarily all signed up for this). So please advise, if that sounds right to you we are happy to move forward with this.

[lwasser]

@eteq, my apologies for the delay in responding here. I took a vacation!

In terms of moving forward, yes, we would definitely expect that the Astropy review would be more high-level and similar to what SunPy went through. I think the next step will be to figure out who can lead this as editor. Will @dhomeier and @hamogu have a conflict of interest (I am not familiar with who works on what parts of Astropy!). cc: @pllim

Let's figure that out together and then we can begin to move things forward!

[hamogu]

I think this is best served by an editor other than me and @dhomeier . I'm not too worried about a conflict of interest, but the package is just so big and so established, that the most beneficial would be a really outside perspective, both for the editor and the reviewers. Every potential reviewer within the astropy community has worked on that package themselves in some form other the years (weather through code contributions or community discussions or some other means) and the packaging standards, layout, testing, docs etc., are what is to be considered the standard that other atrocities package should looks for.

So, if this review has any use, I think it's going to be that of an outside perspective. On the other hand, no specific astronomy skills are needed - we don't expect the reviewer to scrutinize e.g. how tile-compressed fits arrays with BZERO metadata are handled or how the redshift and distance of a galaxy depend on the exact value of the Hubble constant - those things are vetted carefully within the community already.

[pllim]

what is to be considered the standard that other atrocities package should looks for

If no one else, I am sure @Cadair will not be shy to point those out... 😆

[lwasser]

Ok! I think finding the right editor and reviewers will be the tricky part here. I'll sync with @eliotwrobson on how to move this one forward!!

Because most of the astro community has likely contributed to this package, perhaps we look for one reviewer who is more focused on the package and usability, and another who, if they have contributed, has made small contributions (not a maintainer). Does that sound reasonable to you all?

[pllim]

Thank you for choosing to proceed with this! Please let us know if you have questions or concerns that Astropy can assist with.