[PRE REVIEW]: HydroMT: Automated and reproducible model building and analysis

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@dirkeilander<!--end-author-handle-- (Dirk Eilander) Repository: https://github.com/Deltares/hydromt Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss_paper Version: v0.5.0 Editor: !--editor-->@elbeejay<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @JannisHoch, @mcflugen, @LejoFlores Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/71294ea46e6a8003db2badc551056deb"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/71294ea46e6a8003db2badc551056deb/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/71294ea46e6a8003db2badc551056deb/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/71294ea46e6a8003db2badc551056deb)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @dirkeilander. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@dirkeilander 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 JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

Editor instructions

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

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

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

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.20 s (556.0 files/s, 118433.0 lines/s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                      files          blank        comment           code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                           51           1707           4347           9142
YAML                             12            126             20           2230
reStructuredText                 33            963           1150           1525
TeX                               1             26              4            717
Jupyter Notebook                  4              0           1085            226
Markdown                          2             40              0            132
TOML                              1              8              1             82
DOS Batch                         1              8              1             27
JSON                              1              0              0             18
CSS                               1              7              9             16
make                              1              4              6             10
Bourne Again Shell                1              1              0              3
SVG                               2              0              0              2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            111           2890           6623          14130
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1573

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1029/2020wr028301 may be a valid DOI for title: Estimating river channel bathymetry in large scale flood inundation models
- 10.3389/feart.2020.00050 may be a valid DOI for title: Toward reproducible environmental modeling for decision support: A worked example
- 10.31223/x58p62 may be a valid DOI for title: A hydrologist’s guide to open science
- 10.2166/hydro.2020.092 may be a valid DOI for title: Delft Dashboard: a quick set-up tool for hydrodynamic models
- 10.1111/gwat.12413 may be a valid DOI for title: Scripting MODFLOW Model Development Using Python and FloPy
- 10.5194/egusphere-egu22-5510 may be a valid DOI for title: Reproducible large-scale groundwater modelling projects using the iMOD Python package
- 10.3133/tm6a16 may be a valid DOI for title: MODFLOW-2005 : the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water model–the ground-water flow process
- 10.31223/osf.io/e7qzf may be a valid DOI for title: A toolbox to quickly prepare flood inundation models for LISFLOOD-FP simulations
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.03.027 may be a valid DOI for title: A simple inertial formulation of the shallow water equations for efficient two-dimensional flood inundation modelling
- 10.5194/gmd-2022-182 may be a valid DOI for title: Wflow_sbm v0.6.1, a spatially distributed hydrologic model: from global data to local applications
- 10.3389/frwa.2021.713537 may be a valid DOI for title: Estimating Regionalized Hydrological Impacts of Climate Change Over Europe by Performance-Based Weighting of CORDEX Projections
- 10.1016/j.coastaleng.2020.103796 may be a valid DOI for title: Modeling compound flooding in coastal systems using a computationally efficient reduced-physics solver: Including fluvial, pluvial, tidal, wind- and wave-driven processes
- 10.5194/egusphere-2022-149 may be a valid DOI for title: A globally-applicable framework for compound flood hazard modeling
- 10.1029/2019wr026807 may be a valid DOI for title: Scaling Point‐Scale (Pedo)transfer Functions to Seamless Large‐Domain Parameter Estimates for High‐Resolution Distributed Hydrologic Modeling: An Example for the Rhine River
- 10.5334/jors.148 may be a valid DOI for title: xarray: N-D labeled Arrays and Datasets in Python

INVALID DOIs

- None

[arfon]

@DirkEilander - thanks for your submission to JOSS. We're currently managing a large backlog of submissions and the editor most appropriate for your area is already rather busy.

For now, we will need to waitlist this paper and process it as the queue reduces. Thanks for your patience!

[DirkEilander]

Thanks for starting the review process.

Here's a list of potential reviewers (github username) to speed up the process: -Qiusheng Wu (giswqs) -Jon Schwenk (jonschwenk) -Jannis Hoch (JannisHoch) -Hans van der Kwast (jvdkwast)

[kthyng]

Hi @elbeejay! I know you're currently full up but also have a submission that's almost done. Would you be willing to edit this submission?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @elbeejay as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[elbeejay]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @elbeejay is now the editor

[elbeejay]

:wave: @giswqs, @jonschwenk, @JannisHoch, @jvdkwast, @amoodie, @jeffskwang, @kratzert, @mcflugen, I am reaching out to y'all as potential reviewers for this submission to JOSS titled: "HydroMT: Automated and reproducible model building and analysis". While you all are experts at this intersection of Python (specifically modular, reproducible, and user-friendly packaging) and hydrology, I also appreciate that you may not have the time to take on a review. If you do have the time to conduct a review for JOSS however, below is some additional information about the process.

At JOSS we do open checklist-driven reviews; peer-review criteria can be viewed here. This issue is a "pre-review issue" which we use to find peer-reviewers. Once 3 reviewers are found, we will officially start the review in a dedicated GitHub issue. At present we are asking reviewers to complete reviews in 6 weeks, although this can be extended if needed. If you are not able to review but can recommend someone else, please mention them here (in this case please mention their GitHub handle without the "@" symbol).

If you are interested, please take a look at the journal's conflict of interest policy to ensure you do not have a conflict before agreeing to review this submission.

Thanks again for taking a moment to consider this, feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the JOSS review process. Please do not feel any pressure to accept this review request if you do not have the time or do not feel comfortable reviewing this software package, we appreciate and respect our peer-reviewers' time. If you cannot serve as a reviewer at this time but have a peer, collaborator, student, or colleague who might be available and would be a good fit for this submission, please let me know! This submission in particular seems appropriate to have a student conduct some or all of the peer-review process, as one of the target audiences for this package are students, as well as those with little to no Python knowledge beyond installation. So if interested we can figure out how to set up a "co-review" with a more junior or inexperienced member of the community.

Thanks, Jay

[JannisHoch]

Happy to review this piece!

[elbeejay]

@editorialbot add @JannisHoch as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@JannisHoch added to the reviewers list!

[elbeejay]

:wave: @LejoFlores, @devincowan, and @rcabell I wanted to reach out and ask if you have any interest in reviewing this submission to JOSS titled: "HydroMT: Automated and reproducible model building and analysis". You all have expertise at the intersection of hydrology and modeling, with an emphasis on modular code designs (as I understand it) via your involvement in the WRF-Hydro and HydroShare projects in particular. Please let me know if you'd be interested in serving as a reviewer, or if you know of other qualified folks who might be available.

At JOSS we do open checklist-driven reviews; peer-review criteria can be viewed here. This issue is a "pre-review issue" which we use to find peer-reviewers. Once 3 reviewers are found, we will officially start the review in a dedicated GitHub issue. At present we are asking reviewers to complete reviews in 6 weeks, although this can be extended if needed.

If you are interested, please take a look at the journal's conflict of interest policy to ensure you do not have a conflict before agreeing to review this submission.

Thanks again for taking a moment to consider this, feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the JOSS review process. Please do not feel any pressure to accept this review request if you do not have the time or do not feel comfortable reviewing this software package, we appreciate and respect our peer-reviewers' time. If you cannot serve as a reviewer at this time but have a peer, collaborator, student, or colleague who might be available and would be a good fit for this submission, please let me know! This submission in particular seems appropriate to have a student conduct some or all of the peer-review process, as one of the target audiences for this package are students, as well as those with little to no Python knowledge beyond installation. So if interested we can figure out how to set up a "co-review" with a more junior or inexperienced member of the community.

Thanks, Jay

[mcflugen]

@elbeejay Sorry for the delay, I can help out with this one.

[LejoFlores]

Hey @elbeejay... I can also help out too! Thanks for the invite.

[elbeejay]

Fantastic, thanks @mcflugen and @LejoFlores - will add you as reviewers and start the proper "review" issue now.

[elbeejay]

@editorialbot add @mcflugen as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@mcflugen added to the reviewers list!

[elbeejay]

@editorialbot add @LejoFlores as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@LejoFlores added to the reviewers list!

[elbeejay]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/4897.