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

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@dirkeilander@elbeejay<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @JannisHoch, @mcflugen, s>@LejoFlores</s Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7663065

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)

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

@JannisHoch & @mcflugen & @LejoFlores, 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 @elbeejay 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 @JannisHoch

📝 Checklist for @mcflugen

📝 ~~Checklist for @LejoFlores~~ - dropped due to inactivity in review process

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Hello humans, 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 commented 1 year ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.17 s (638.5 files/s, 136004.3 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 commented 1 year ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 1573

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

Thanks again @JannisHoch, @mcflugen and @LejoFlores for agreeing to review HydroMT. Instructions about how to generate your reviewer checklist as well as how to conduct a JOSS review are provided in the above comments, but please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions. I'll be asking the bot to send out reminders about the review in 3 weeks time; note that we are currently asking our reviewers to complete their reviews within 6 weeks.

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot remind @JannisHoch in three weeks

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Reminder set for @JannisHoch in three weeks

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot remind @mcflugen in three weeks

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Reminder set for @mcflugen in three weeks

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot remind @LejoFlores in three weeks

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Reminder set for @LejoFlores in three weeks

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

LejoFlores commented 1 year ago

Strike-out of text by @elbeejay on Jan. 3, 2023 due to inactivity.

~~## Review checklist for @LejoFlores~~

Conflict of interest

[ ] 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

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

General checks

[ ] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/Deltares/hydromt?

[ ] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?

[ ] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@dirkeilander) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

[ ] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

[ ] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.

[ ] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.

[ ] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

[ ] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?

[ ] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?

[ ] 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

[ ] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?

[ ] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.

[ ] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).

[ ] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?

[ ] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?

[ ] 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

[ ] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?

[ ] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?

[ ] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?

[ ] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?

[ ] 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?

JannisHoch commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @JannisHoch

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 https://github.com/Deltares/hydromt?
[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 (@dirkeilander) 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
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[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?

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:wave: @JannisHoch, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:wave: @mcflugen, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:wave: @LejoFlores, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

Hi @JannisHoch, @mcflugen, and @LejoFlores - we are now 3 weeks into this review process so I just wanted to check-in and make sure this was still on your to-do lists! As a reminder we are asking our reviewers to complete their reviews within 6 weeks; to help keep us on track I'll ask the bot to send out another set of reminders in 2 weeks.

As always, let me know if you have any questions about the JOSS review process.

Thanks, Jay

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot remind @JannisHoch in two weeks

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Reminder set for @JannisHoch in two weeks

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot remind @mcflugen in two weeks

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Reminder set for @mcflugen in two weeks

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot remind @LejoFlores in two weeks

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Reminder set for @LejoFlores in two weeks

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

:wave: @JannisHoch @mcflugen @LejoFlores just popping in here to remind you all that your reviews of the HydroMT package are going to be due soon. @JannisHoch I see you've begun to go through the repository and mark up your reviewer checklist. Thank you @LejoFlores for generating your reviewer checklist. @mcflugen don't forget to use the editorialbot to generate your checklist when you begin your review. Please let me know if any questions about the review process crop up.

Jay

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:wave: @JannisHoch, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:wave: @mcflugen, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:wave: @LejoFlores, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

:wave: @JannisHoch @mcflugen @LejoFlores checking in here, how are the reviews going?

We are 5 weeks into the review process now. If possible we ask that you have your initial reviews of this submission complete by next week. If this is not going to be possible, please comment here so we can sort out an extension and so that @DirkEilander can be aware of when they should expect to get reviews back.

Thanks, Jay

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

@DirkEilander as an update for you I've reached out to our reviewers via email to remind them to conduct their reviews.

JannisHoch commented 1 year ago

@elbeejay my apologies for not finalising the review earlier. everything was already in place, but ticking the boxes here kept on dropping on my pre-christmas to-do list. finally done now - the HydroMT seems to be a great resource and I can already see a good pick up of it in the field. Well done @DirkEilander et al.!

mcflugen commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @mcflugen

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 https://github.com/Deltares/hydromt?
[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 (@dirkeilander) 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
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[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?

mcflugen commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

@DirkEilander it seems like @JannisHoch is pleased with the submission. I noticed that there were two issues opened:

https://github.com/Deltares/hydromt/issues/243

and

https://github.com/Deltares/hydromt/issues/244

Given the praise from @JannisHoch above, as well as the fact that they've now completed their reviewer checklist, it seems that they are comfortable with the package as it stands.

I have heard from @LejoFlores and it sounds like they intend to complete their review in the next week or so.

Looking at @mcflugen's checklist it looks like their review is nearing completion as well.

Given the amount of time that has elapsed between your submission and when we are reaching the end of this review process, and what appears to be a non-trivial amount of development work on HydroMT, I wanted to let you know that you are able to expand the list of authors if you desire. There will be an opportunity to update the version of the software associated with the JOSS publication at the end of this process as we require a tagged and archived copy of the software to be released to link to the JOSS paper. I just wanted to let you know that we are flexible in those regards, and that we are nearing the end of a somewhat long review process.

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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
- 10.1111/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
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104812 may be a valid DOI for title: User-friendly workflows for catchment modelling: Towards reproducible SWAT+ model studies

INVALID DOIs

- None

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

@DirkEilander do you think you could revise the citations in the paper to address the missing DOIs as noted by the bot in the above comment?

@mcflugen I'm guessing that will address your "references" checkbox. Regarding the "state of the field" can you provide a comment or some context to give some insight into what you are looking for (or what you wanted to read but didn't)?

DirkEilander commented 1 year ago

@elbeejay Thanks for pushing the review process forward! It would indeed be nice to link the paper to the latest released version. I've updated the references in the HydroMT JOSS paper branch to include DOIs where available.

DirkEilander commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1088/1748-9326/ac4d4f is OK
- 10.1029/2020wr028301 is OK
- 10.3389/feart.2020.00050 is OK
- 10.5194/hess-26-647-2022 is OK
- 10.1111/gwat.12413 is OK
- 10.5194/egusphere-egu22-5510 is OK
- 10.3133/tm6a16 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.104561 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.03.027 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-2022-182 is OK
- 10.3389/frwa.2021.713537 is OK
- 10.5194/hess-2021-605 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ejrh.2021.100911 is OK
- 10.1016/j.coastaleng.2020.103796 is OK
- 10.5194/egusphere-2022-149 is OK
- 10.1029/2019WR026807 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.148 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.6478182 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5573592 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.6108034 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5884351 is OK
- 10.15497/RDA00068 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104812 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

mcflugen commented 1 year ago

@mcflugen I'm guessing that will address your "references" checkbox. Regarding the "state of the field" can you provide a comment or some context to give some insight into what you are looking for (or what you wanted to read but didn't)?

@elbeejay Sorry for the delay. Now that the holidays have passed, I'll finish up my review. I'll open an issue over at HydroMT with some suggested changes but, overall, I think it's a great contribution and there shouldn't be much in the way of requested changes.

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

@mcflugen I'm guessing that will address your "references" checkbox. Regarding the "state of the field" can you provide a comment or some context to give some insight into what you are looking for (or what you wanted to read but didn't)?

@elbeejay Sorry for the delay. Now that the holidays have passed, I'll finish up my review. I'll open an issue over at HydroMT with some suggested changes but, overall, I think it's a great contribution and there shouldn't be much in the way of requested changes.

No worries, thanks for the update and thanks for reviewing this submission @mcflugen.

@DirkEilander once @mcflugen is able to finish their review and open an issue, it sounds like you may just have a few minor things to edit. Once that is done we will move on with accepting and getting this submission published; I am going to be removing @LejoFlores from this review issue.

mcflugen commented 1 year ago

@elbeejay I've made some comments in Deltares/hydromt#260 regarding the paper. Once those are addressed, I think the paper will be good to go.

I've tested the software on my Mac (intel) but not on any other platforms. Do you think it is necessary to test it on any additional platforms. If so, I can do that.

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

@mcflugen thanks for doing that. I don't think we need additional testing on other platforms, looks like their tests run on ubuntu and I'd suspect at least 1 of the 14 contributors to the project is working on Windows.

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

@mcflugen and @DirkEilander - I wanted to follow up as it appears as though https://github.com/Deltares/hydromt/issues/260 has been resolved. Can one of you please confirm and close that issue if so?

@mcflugen I'd also ask you to close out your remaining checkboxes at this time (if appropriate).

Reminder that authors and reviewers can also re-generate the paper PDF and reference check at any time, see second post in this issue for commands.

thanks all!

mcflugen commented 1 year ago

@elbeejay maybe I'm missing something but it looks to me like they are still working on it as I don't see any changes to paper.md.

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

@elbeejay maybe I'm missing something but it looks to me like they are still working on it as I don't see any changes to paper.md.

I agree - I'd just seen @DirkEilander checked off all of the individual items but looking at the paper.md file itself it appears the edits have yet to be pushed

DirkEilander commented 1 year ago

@elbeejay: Sorry for the confusion, I've now finished the response and updating of the files. I had not yet pushed the updated files before as I still needed time for a last check and to write a response the comments of @mcflugen.

LejoFlores commented 1 year ago

Sorry for dropping the ball on this @elbeejay. I’ve been slammed with a proposal for the past month. Please do consider me for revisions or other submissions.

openjournals / joss-reviews