[PRE REVIEW]: Open and Reproducible Data Science for Earth and Environmental Data: The Intermediate Earth Analytics Online Textbook

[whedon]

Submitting author: @lwasser (Leah Wasser) Repository: https://github.com/earthlab/earth-analytics-intermediate-earth-data-science-textbook Version: release 1.0 Editor: @labarba Reviewers: @cgentemann, @snowman2, @ConorIA Managing EiC: Jordan Gorzalski

:warning: JOSE reduced service mode :warning:

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSE is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/7481df300f47a7022e0f30d448c20ff1"><img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/7481df300f47a7022e0f30d448c20ff1/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/7481df300f47a7022e0f30d448c20ff1/status.svg)](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/7481df300f47a7022e0f30d448c20ff1)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @lwasser. Currently, there isn't an JOSE editor assigned to your paper.

@lwasser if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

[labarba]

hi @cisaacstern — Thank you for your interest! Since this submission is particularly large (in terms of content), I proposed to the authors that we chunk it into three parts, and get separate reviewers for each part. The aim is to manage reviewer workload. With this in mind, the author suggested the 3 parts in a comment above. If you think you are better aligned with Part 2, we need a reviewer for that one, too.

Have a look at the Reviewing for JOSE section of our documentation. The review is checklist-driven. Before the pandemic, we were suggesting a review period of about three weeks. During the pandemic, this stretched for months, and now we're trying to get back to the order of "weeks" but with flexibility. JOSE is a fully volunteer-run journal.

[cisaacstern]

@labarba, thanks for this further information and for thinking to reach out to me at all. I really am honored to be included in this conversation. Having taken a closer look at Parts 1 and 2, I do not believe my experience would allow me to complete the review this material and its authors deserve. My professional focus is on Python package development for cloud data management, and while I am familiar with the data science applications treated by this submission, I don't feel I have sufficient expertise in these areas to review them. I've added my name to the volunteer form linked above and would be happy to consider reviewing in the future. Best of luck, and apologies that I could not be of more help.

[labarba]

Thanks so much, @cisaacstern !!

[raspstephan]

Here are some potential alternative reviewers @labarba

• DamienIrving - He has been very active in reproducibility and also education I believe
• salvis2 - I think he has contributed some tutorials to Pangeo

[abarciauskas-bgse]

@cgentemann Thanks for tagging me on this opportunity! I have created an internal call within the Development Seed team in case someone can pick up a review of one of the sections before I can.

@labarba sorry if this is stated somewhere but I am new to this process - where should folks submit their review? Would it be in a github issue here, as an issue in the https://github.com/earthlab/earth-analytics-intermediate-earth-data-science-textbook or as a PR in that repository?

[labarba]

hi @abarciauskas-bgse — Once we have sufficient reviewers, who will be assigned here, we run @whedon start review and that will open a new issue thread with a review checklist for each reviewer. The review is tracked there, but reviewers are welcome to open issues on the target repository (with a cross-link to the review issue) for specific change requests.

[labarba]

@whedon assign @cgentemann as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, @cgentemann is now a reviewer

[labarba]

@cgentemann You'll be reviewing Part 3, according to the partition suggested by the author in the comment above.

[labarba]

@snowman2 – You are on-board, yes? Can I now add you as reviewer, and we have you for Part 3?

[labarba]

@whedon add @MicheleTobias as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, @MicheleTobias is now a reviewer

[labarba]

@MicheleTobias – We have you for reviewing Part 2, according to the partition suggested by the author in the comment above.

[labarba]

@jhamman 👋 — I am looking for reviewers for this submission to JOSE (The Journal of Open Source Education): "Open and Reproducible Data Science for Earth and Environmental Data: The Intermediate Earth Analytics Online Textbook" It's fairly large, so we want to split it in three parts, and get separate reviewers for each part. We're needing reviewers for Part 1 or 2. Might you be able to volunteer a review for us? Thanks for considering it!

[labarba]

@matthewhanson 👋 — I am looking for reviewers for this submission to JOSE (The Journal of Open Source Education): "Open and Reproducible Data Science for Earth and Environmental Data: The Intermediate Earth Analytics Online Textbook" It's fairly large, so we want to split it in three parts, and get separate reviewers for each part. We're needing reviewers for Part 1 or 2. Might you be able to volunteer a review for us? Thanks for considering it!

[MicheleTobias]

There is a lot more overhead in figuring out how the review process works for this journal than I realized and I just don't think I've got the time given my current obligations.

[snowman2]

You are on-board, yes? Can I now add you as

Yes, I am on board. I missed this comment in my notifications earlier ...

[labarba]

@whedon unassign @MicheleTobias as reviewer

[whedon]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@whedon commands

[labarba]

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List all of Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# Assign a GitHub user as the sole reviewer of this submission
@whedon assign @username as reviewer

# Add a GitHub user to the reviewers of this submission
@whedon add @username as reviewer

# Re-invite a reviewer (if they can't update checklists)
@whedon re-invite @username as reviewer

# Remove a GitHub user from the reviewers of this submission
@whedon remove @username as reviewer

# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors

# List of reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers

# Change editorial assignment
@whedon assign @username as editor

# Set the software archive DOI at the top of the issue e.g.
@whedon set 10.0000/zenodo.00000 as archive

# Set the software version at the top of the issue e.g.
@whedon set v1.0.1 as version

# Open the review issue
@whedon start review

EDITORIAL TASKS

# All commands can be run on a non-default branch, to do this pass a custom 
# branch name by following the command with `from branch custom-branch-name`.
# For example:

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf

# Compile the paper from alternative branch
@whedon generate pdf from branch custom-branch-name

# Remind an author or reviewer to return to a review after a
# certain period of time (supported units days and weeks)
@whedon remind @reviewer in 2 weeks

# Ask Whedon to do a dry run of accepting the paper and depositing with Crossref
@whedon recommend-accept

# Ask Whedon to check the references for missing DOIs
@whedon check references

# Ask Whedon to check repository statistics for the submitted software
@whedon check repository

EiC TASKS

# Invite an editor to edit a submission (sending them an email)
@whedon invite @editor as editor

# Reject a paper
@whedon reject

# Withdraw a paper
@whedon withdraw

# Ask Whedon to actually accept the paper and deposit with Crossref
@whedon accept deposit=true

[labarba]

@whedon remove @MicheleTobias as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, @MicheleTobias is no longer a reviewer

[labarba]

@whedon add @snowman2 as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, @snowman2 is now a reviewer

[labarba]

@abarciauskas-bgse – We were hoping you could help us with a review of this submission to The Journal of Open Source Education. You did say that you had made an internal call within the Development Seed team, but you didn't say if you could perhaps offer a review?

[abarciauskas-bgse]

@labarba thanks for following up, I would like to offer a review but am short on time the next 2 weeks. Do you have a deadline you are trying to hit for reviews?

[cgentemann]

@labarba hi lorena. sorry, i'm a little confused about the review process. I see the reviewer (checklist)[https://openjournals.readthedocs.io/en/jose/review_checklist.html#] Do I just post here with the checklist eg:

• [x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.
• [x] Repository and so on? thanks, sorry it has taken me a while to get to this. Happy holidays!

[labarba]

Hi @cgentemann — thanks for your question. Because this is a large submission, we decided to chunk it in three and get reviewers for each chunk. This has made it more difficult to secure the necessary reviewers. Our process is that we find and assign the reviewers here, in this PRE-REVIEW issue. Then I will run the command @whedon start review which will open a new REVIEW issue, which will have the reviewer checklist at the top for every reviewer. In the interim, when we have some committed reviewers, but not sufficient to start the review, it's kind of a limbo when you can study the materials but we don't have a reviewer checklist for you yet!

[labarba]

hi @ConorIA 👋 — You just had a paper accepted in JOSE. Congrats! Would you be willing to contribute back with a review! We have a big submission that we are chunking in three parts for the review, and so need six reviewers. Have a look: Title: "Open and Reproducible Data Science for Earth and Environmental Data: The Intermediate Earth Analytics Online Textbook" Pre-review: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/issues/131 Post on the three-part chunking for review: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/issues/131#issuecomment-948735998

[ConorIA]

Hi @labarba, first, thanks! I would of course be happy to contribute a review. Looking at the breakdown, I think I'd be best suited to review part 1, but I am happy to review one of the other sections if you have enough reviewers for part 1.

[labarba]

Thank you, @ConorIA—and indeed we need reviewers for Part 1. I will assign you now, and we will start the review as soon as we secure sufficient reviewers. Feel free to start exploring the materials in the interim. We shall persevere!

[labarba]

@whedon add @ConorIA as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, @ConorIA is now a reviewer

[labarba]

I will now be withdrawing this submission, after email notification to the submitting author.

The editorial team met to discuss it and unfortunately we weren't able to see a way forward with this publication. It does not appear to be the right fit for JOSE. The main concern is the size of the content, which is too much to request a review for from volunteers. We tried to improvise a solution by breaking into sections, but still cannot find reviewers willing to work on it.

[labarba]

@whedon withdraw

[whedon]

Paper withdrawn.