[REVIEW]: py_SBeLT: A Python software package for stochastic sediment transport under rarefied conditions

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@szwiep@kbarnhart<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @pfeiffea, @tdoane Archive: 10.6084/m9.figshare.19967552.v3

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d7b9cc16b87e8875ec7115a22e1413fe"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d7b9cc16b87e8875ec7115a22e1413fe/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d7b9cc16b87e8875ec7115a22e1413fe/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d7b9cc16b87e8875ec7115a22e1413fe)

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

@pfeiffea & @tdoane, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review. First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

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 ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @tdoane

📝 Checklist for @pfeiffea

smchartrand commented 2 years ago

Thanks very much @pfeiffea for jumping back on the review this morning, and for your constructive and supportive feedback. Your time is most appreciated.

kbarnhart commented 2 years ago

@szwiep, @smchartrand -- just letting you know that revisiting this is on my todo list, but I'm running behind. Thanks for your patience.

kbarnhart commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

kbarnhart commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1103/PhysRevE.74.011302 is OK
- 10.1017/S0022112007008774 is OK
- 10.1029/2009JF001260 is OK
- 10.1080/00221686.2019.1702594 is OK
- 10.14288/1.0349138 is OK
- 10.1002/2015JF003552 is OK
- 10.1029/2012JF002352 is OK
- 10.1002/2016JF003833 is OK
- 10.5194/esurf-9-629-2021 is OK
- 10.5194/esurf-6-1089-2018 is OK
- 10.1061/9780784408148.ch03 is OK
- 10.1029/2012JF002353 is OK
- 10.1002/2014RG000474 is OK
- 10.1029/2019WR025116 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

kbarnhart commented 2 years ago

@szwiep @smchartrand, please merge https://github.com/szwiep/py_SBeLT/pull/25 and then re run the command

@editorialbot generate pdf

here.

Verify that the Lee and Jerolmack citation formats correctly (it was just missing an @). Presuming this resolves that issue, then do the following:

[ ] Make a tagged release of your software.
[ ] Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g., figshare, an institutional repository)
[ ] Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) has the correct metadata. This includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it). You may also add the authors' ORCID.
[ ] List the DOI of the archived version here.
[ ] List the version tag number of the archived version here.

I will then update the paper's metadata and recommend it be accepted. At that point the handling editor in chief will manage final steps.

smchartrand commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

smchartrand commented 2 years ago

@kbarnhart: Lee and Jerolmack looks good. Thanks for correcting my mistake. We will get the remaining items on the checklist done this evening or tomorrow.

smchartrand commented 2 years ago

@kbarnhart - here you go, and thanks again for handling the work and your support through the process - it is much appreciated.

Make a tagged release of your software. - Completed by @szwiep today at 10:59
Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g., figshare, an institutional repository) - Completed today. Made archive at figshare.
Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) has the correct metadata. This includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it). You may also add the authors' ORCID. - Completed today. Metadata are the same, including orcid id's.
List the DOI of the archived version here. - https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19967552.v2
List the version tag number of the archived version here. - v1.0.2

kbarnhart commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot set 10.6084/m9.figshare.19967552.v2 as version

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Done! version is now 10.6084/m9.figshare.19967552.v2

kbarnhart commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot set 10.6084/m9.figshare.19967552.v2 as archive

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Done! Archive is now 10.6084/m9.figshare.19967552.v2

kbarnhart commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot set v1.0.2 as version

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Done! version is now v1.0.2

kbarnhart commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1103/PhysRevE.74.011302 is OK
- 10.1017/S0022112007008774 is OK
- 10.1029/2009JF001260 is OK
- 10.1080/00221686.2019.1702594 is OK
- 10.14288/1.0349138 is OK
- 10.1002/2015JF003552 is OK
- 10.1029/2012JF002352 is OK
- 10.1002/2016JF003833 is OK
- 10.5194/esurf-9-629-2021 is OK
- 10.5194/esurf-6-1089-2018 is OK
- 10.1061/9780784408148.ch03 is OK
- 10.1029/2012JF002353 is OK
- 10.1002/2014RG000474 is OK
- 10.1029/2019WR025116 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 2 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/3266

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/3266, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

kbarnhart commented 2 years ago

@szwiep and @smchartrand -- I've recommended that your submission be accepted and published. One of the JOSS Editors in Chief (ping @openjournals/joss-eics) will handle the submission from this point.

Many thanks to @pfeiffea and @tdoane for your reviews.

Thanks to all for your contributions to JOSS.

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

As AEiC this week, I'll move this forward in the next hour or two

smchartrand commented 2 years ago

Thanks very much to you all - @kbarnhart @danielskatz @tdoane @pfeiffea.

It has been a real pleasure working through the review process for JOSS.

Have a wonderful weekend.

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

I'm sorry, but I'm going to request that you change the title - in my opinion, "a software" is not grammatically correct. Can you change it to "a software package" or "a software library" or "software" (without the "a" first)?

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

also, I see "bed load" and "bedload" in different parts of the paper. Can you choose one and use it consistently?

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

Once these two issues are fixed, the paper looks ready to go to me

smchartrand commented 2 years ago

Apologies. I will take care of both of these issues in the next hour.

smchartrand commented 2 years ago

@danielskatz

For the title, how about: py_SBeLT: Python model for stochastic sediment transport under rarefied conditions?

I am glad you raised this issues. I am hesitant to use "package", and now "software" since it is really a numerical model. Thoughts?

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

"A Python model" sounds better grammatically to me, though I think the model is implemented in software, so I could see reasons to state this is software too, particularly as a JOSS paper.

smchartrand commented 2 years ago

Okay. I will use: "A Python software package...." Sound good?

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

yes, thanks

smchartrand commented 2 years ago

I will also correct the title in the archived repository at figshare.

I have made the corrections to the use of bedload, and have opted for "bed load". And I have changed the title. The paper is ready.

smchartrand commented 2 years ago

@danielskatz

Updated DOI for figshare archive: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19967552.v3

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot set 10.6084/m9.figshare.19967552.v3 as archive

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Done! Archive is now 10.6084/m9.figshare.19967552.v3

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1103/PhysRevE.74.011302 is OK
- 10.1017/S0022112007008774 is OK
- 10.1029/2009JF001260 is OK
- 10.1080/00221686.2019.1702594 is OK
- 10.14288/1.0349138 is OK
- 10.1002/2015JF003552 is OK
- 10.1029/2012JF002352 is OK
- 10.1002/2016JF003833 is OK
- 10.5194/esurf-9-629-2021 is OK
- 10.5194/esurf-6-1089-2018 is OK
- 10.1061/9780784408148.ch03 is OK
- 10.1029/2012JF002353 is OK
- 10.1002/2014RG000474 is OK
- 10.1029/2019WR025116 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 2 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/3267

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/3267, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

editorialbot commented 2 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/3268
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04282
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

Congratulations to @szwiep and @smchartrand!!

And thanks to @pfeiffea and @tdoane for reviewing, and to @kbarnhart for editing! We couldn't do this without you

editorialbot commented 2 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.04282/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04282)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04282">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04282/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04282/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04282

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The 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

szwiep commented 2 years ago

How exciting! Thank you again @kbarnhart, @tdoane, @pfeiffea, and @danielskatz for your efforts. I learned a lot, and the model was definitely improved, by participating in this process. What a great experience.

openjournals / joss-reviews