[PRE REVIEW]: REAR: a Regional ElAstic Rebound calculator

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@danielemelini<!--end-author-handle-- (Daniele Melini) Repository: https://github.com/danielemelini/rear Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss_paper Version: v1.5 Editor: Pending Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1331eb5ccf822843ccd55e2df1c69698"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1331eb5ccf822843ccd55e2df1c69698/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1331eb5ccf822843ccd55e2df1c69698/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1331eb5ccf822843ccd55e2df1c69698)

Author instructions

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

@danielemelini 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]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.04952.x is OK
- 10.1126/science.1228102 is OK
- 10.1029/RG010i003p00761 is OK
- 10.1093/gji/ggac263 is OK
- 10.1093/gji/ggw115 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05443.x is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1976.tb01252.x is OK
- 10.1029/2018GC007529 is OK
- 10.1086/310310 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.04 s (436.8 files/s, 79570.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fortran 90                       4              8            689            796
Fortran 77                       1             30            241            537
Bourne Shell                     6              2            177            172
TeX                              1             12              0            100
Markdown                         2             19              0             64
YAML                             1              1              4             18
make                             1              1             27             17
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            16             73           1138           1704
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1088

[editorialbot]

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

[kthyng]

Hi @danielemelini and thank you for your submission. I am going to ping the editorial board to make sure it is in scope before proceeding. This process will take 1-2 weeks. Thanks for your patience!

[kthyng]

@editorialbot query scope

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[jedbrown]

:wave: Thanks for this submission. Could you be more specific about who is the target audience for this software? Ice sheet models like PISM have fast viscoelastic response calculation (see this paper) and models that don't yet have such a module would strongly prefer a library interface to executables. Part of the audience identification is whether a purely elastic model is sufficient, given that viscoelastic response is significant on the time scale of ice sheet models.

Also, it looks like this package is missing automated tests and contributing guidelines, and is sparsely documented (I see code comments at best, but icosahedron.f is almost uncommented, for example).

[danielemelini]

Hi @jedbrown REAR is aimed at modeling the deformation cauded by surface loads in cases where that response is purely elastic; these may include, for instance, the response to present-day melting of continental ice sheets on a decadal timescale (see e.g. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05443.x) or to the seasonal variation of hydrologic loads (e.g. aquifers or lakes, see https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JB013361 for an example application). REAR is also being used to estimate elastic rebound within the IMBIE3 exercise (https://www.imbie.org/). In all these contexts a purely elastic modeling is appropriate due to the short involved timescales. While models like PISM can perform a much more detailed modeling including the coupling between ice sheets and solid earth taking viscoelasticity into account, REAR has the advantage of being a simple code which is easier to set up and use if a simple elastic model is appropriate for the specific application. In this respect, we may view it as complementary to viscoelastic codes.

A testing procedure is described in the user manual, in which an example is run and its outputs are cross-checked against reference results with a script that is provided in the REAR package; the whole process requires that the user types just a few comments. Regarding the icosahedron.f source file, it is a public domain library developed by Max Tegmark (https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/icosahedron.html) that we redistribute with REAR for the user's convenience.

We added a file with contributing guidelines to the repository.

[arfon]

For absolute clarity, could you please link to which source code files here (https://github.com/danielemelini/rear/tree/master/src) are novel/newly authored as part of this submission?

[danielemelini]

Hi @arfon Most of the new contributions relevant to this subimissions are in the make_gf.f90 and make_map.f90 source files, i.e. https://github.com/danielemelini/rear/blob/master/src/make_gf.f90 and https://github.com/danielemelini/rear/blob/master/src/make_map.f90 . Significant changes have been made also to the utils.f90 source file (https://github.com/danielemelini/rear/blob/master/src/utils.f90), but they involve some auxiliary routines and are not directly related to the science case.

[kthyng]

@danielemelini Thank you for your patience. Unfortunately the JOSS editorial board has determined that this submission is too small to be considered in scope. This is not a judgement on the utility of the software, only as to whether it is in scope for us. You can get more information here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#substantial-scholarly-effort

Additionally, you can find other ways to publish your code here, if you are interested: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#other-venues-for-reviewing-and-publishing-software-packages

[kthyng]

@editorialbot reject

[editorialbot]

Paper rejected.