[REVIEW]: SWEpy: A Python Library for Quick and Easy Access and Manipulation of MEaSUREs CETB files for SWE analysis

whedon commented 6 years ago

Submitting author: @wino6687 (will norris) Repository: https://github.com/wino6687/SWEpy Version: v1.1.7 Editor: @arfon Reviewer: @usethedata Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1849824

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/9d64f87cdcc80b9d9a01bb1103142c7f"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/9d64f87cdcc80b9d9a01bb1103142c7f/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/9d64f87cdcc80b9d9a01bb1103142c7f/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/9d64f87cdcc80b9d9a01bb1103142c7f)

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) 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

@usethedata, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @arfon know.

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨

Review checklist for @usethedata

Conflict of interest

[X] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

[X] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[X] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
[X] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[X] Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.1.5)?
[X] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@wino6687) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

[X] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[X] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[X] 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

[X] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[X] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[X] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[X] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[X] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
[X] 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

[X] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[X] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[X] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

whedon commented 6 years ago

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @usethedata it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper :tada:.

:star: Important :star:

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

watching

You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

whedon commented 6 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 6 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

arfon commented 6 years ago

@wino6687 - it looks like your paper doesn't have any references, or if they are, they're not being compiled in. You can read how to cite works in Pandoc here

usethedata commented 6 years ago

@arfon What's the correct way to document what I don't see as a COI so that it's out there? In terms of the stated COI policy, we're fine. I've never been a collaborator with either of the authors, nor have I ever collaborated directly with the Earth Lab at UC Boulder. People who report to me are collaborators with the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at UC-B, which is the source of the data referenced by this software. But nobody that works for me is a collaborator (or has been a collaborator) with UC-B Earth Lab in the past 4+ years. I'm the PI for one of the NASA DAACs (ORNL DAAC), and part of NSDIC funding is a separate contract from NASA, but under the same program.

arfon commented 6 years ago

@arfon What's the correct way to document what I don't see as a COI so that it's out there?

I think you've just done it 😁. Thanks for disclosing this - and please proceed with the review.

wino6687 commented 6 years ago

@arfon, thanks for pointing that out! I do reference the NSIDC database that is used, I will get that fixed now.

wino6687 commented 6 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 6 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 6 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

wino6687 commented 6 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 6 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 6 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

wino6687 commented 6 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 6 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 6 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

wino6687 commented 6 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 6 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 6 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

wino6687 commented 6 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 6 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 6 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

wino6687 commented 6 years ago

Alright, the citation is fixed, sorry it took so many iterations!

wino6687 commented 6 years ago

Hi @arfon, I updated the current git release over the last couple weeks to v1.1.7. Is there a way to update the JOSS review to v1.1.7?

arfon commented 6 years ago

Hi @arfon, I updated the current git release over the last couple weeks to v1.1.7. Is there a way to update the JOSS review to v1.1.7?

Done.

arfon commented 6 years ago

How are you getting along with your review @usethedata ?

usethedata commented 6 years ago

Sorry. Delayed due to some family health issues. Things are ok now, but will be Monday before I can get back to it.

Bruce On Nov 1, 2018, 9:39 PM -0400, Arfon Smith notifications@github.com, wrote:

How are you getting along with your review @usethedata ? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

usethedata commented 5 years ago

Review completed.

kyleniemeyer commented 5 years ago

@usethedata thanks for your review!

@wino6687 if you have completed making any changes, can you archive the software and report the DOI back here?

wino6687 commented 5 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.1849824 as archive

whedon commented 5 years ago

I'm sorry @wino6687, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do.

wino6687 commented 5 years ago

Looks like I can't do that! Thank you @usethedata for the review, and @kyleniemeyer, the archive is 10.5281/zenodo.1849824

Thank you!!

kyleniemeyer commented 5 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.1849824 as archive

whedon commented 5 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.1849824 is the archive.

wino6687 commented 5 years ago

Hi @kyleniemeyer and @arfon, is there anything else I should be doing right now to help with the process? Thanks!

arfon commented 5 years ago

@whedon accept

whedon commented 5 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

arfon commented 5 years ago

Hi @kyleniemeyer and @arfon, is there anything else I should be doing right now to help with the process? Thanks!

Thanks for the bump. This got lost in the handoff between editors.

whedon commented 5 years ago

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/107

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/107, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

arfon commented 5 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon commented 5 years ago

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

whedon commented 5 years ago

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/108
Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01018
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

whedon commented 5 years ago

:tada::tada::tada: Congratulations on your paper acceptance! :tada::tada::tada:

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01018/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01018)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01018">
  <img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01018/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01018/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01018

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

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: http://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/Mjk3Nzk=

arfon commented 5 years ago

@usethedata - many thanks for your review ✨

@wino6687 - your paper is now accepted into JOSS :zap::rocket::boom:

openjournals / joss-reviews