[REVIEW]: RivGraph: Automatic extraction and analysis of river and delta channel network topology

whedon commented 3 years ago

Submitting author: @jonschwenk (Jon Schwenk) Repository: https://github.com/jonschwenk/RivGraph Version: v0.4 Editor: @kbarnhart Reviewer: @eriknes, @leotrs Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.4591559

:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS 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://joss.theoj.org/papers/d77053c498e659093660ad5c01613b9e"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d77053c498e659093660ad5c01613b9e/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d77053c498e659093660ad5c01613b9e/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d77053c498e659093660ad5c01613b9e)

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

@eriknes & @leotrs, 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.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @kbarnhart 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 ✨

Review checklist for @eriknes

Conflict of interest

[x] 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

[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] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@jonschwenk) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

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 functionality 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] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[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] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] 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?

Review checklist for @leotrs

Conflict of interest

[x] 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

[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] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@jonschwenk) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

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 functionality 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] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[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] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] 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?

whedon commented 3 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1029/2020WR027199 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1029/2019JF005206 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3946761 is OK
- 10.1029/2019WR026867 is OK
- 10.1002/esp.3482 is OK
- 10.3390/ijgi9110658 is OK
- 10.1002/2016EA000196 is OK
- 10.13140/RG.2.2.31051.44323 is OK
- 10.5194/esurf-8-87-2020 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3783866 is OK
- 10.1002/2014WR016604 is OK
- 10.1002/2014WR016577 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1708404114 is OK
- 10.1002/essoar.10502024.1 is OK
- 10.7717/peerj.453 is OK
- 10.1029/2019GL086710 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

kbarnhart commented 3 years ago

@jonschwenk I've now recommended that is submission be accepted and published. One of the JOSS EICs will handle the final steps @openjournals/joss-eics. Congratulations to you and @elbeejay on a valuable contribution to research software.

Many thanks to reviewers @leotrs and @eriknes for contributing thoughtful and constructive reviews.

whedon commented 3 years ago

:wave: @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/2137

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/2137, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

jonschwenk commented 3 years ago

Awesome. Big thanks to @leotrs, @eriknes for their reviews. Bigger thanks to JOSS and editors like @kbarnhart who provide an awesome platform for scientific developers to announce, share, and get credit for their work. Also thanks whedon!

kyleniemeyer commented 3 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true

Looks good to me!

whedon commented 3 years ago

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

whedon commented 3 years ago

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

whedon commented 3 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/2138
Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02952
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

kyleniemeyer commented 3 years ago

Congrats @jonschwenk on your article's publication in JOSS!

Many thanks to @eriknes and @leotrs for reviewing this, and @kbarnhart for editing.

(FYI, the DOI successfully resolves, but it looks like the final PDF is not yet appearing—this should change shortly.)

whedon commented 3 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](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02952/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02952)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02952">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02952/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02952/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02952

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: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

openjournals / joss-reviews