[PRE REVIEW]: gemlog: Data Conversion for the Open-Source Gem Infrasound Logger

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@ajakef<!--end-author-handle-- (Jacob Anderson) Repository: https://github.com/ajakef/gemlog Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper Version: v1.6.6 Editor: !--editor-->@bmcfee<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @thelenwes, @hemmelig Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/56051d4674913c170373d37f05558dc3"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/56051d4674913c170373d37f05558dc3/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/56051d4674913c170373d37f05558dc3/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/56051d4674913c170373d37f05558dc3)

Author instructions

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

@ajakef 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=0.31 s (155.4 files/s, 20600.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          19            613           1218           2824
Markdown                         8            176              0            541
reStructuredText                12            152             40            229
YAML                             4             29             30            146
TeX                              1              7              0            140
Cython                           1             19             37             96
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
CSS                              1              1              4              6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            48           1009           1337           4017
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1023

[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

- 10.1785/0220170067 may be a valid DOI for title: The Gem infrasound logger and custom-built instrumentation
- 10.1029/2021gl093013 may be a valid DOI for title: The first detection of an earthquake from a balloon using its acoustic signature
- 10.1785/0220180038 may be a valid DOI for title: Explosion-generated infrasound recorded on ground and airborne microbarometers at regional distances
- 10.2172/1829264 may be a valid DOI for title: Evaluation of Low Cost Infrasound Sensor Packages.
- 10.1093/gji/ggy069 may be a valid DOI for title: Acoustic event location and background noise characterization on a free flying infrasound sensor network in the stratosphere
- 10.1029/2021ea002036 may be a valid DOI for title: Evidence for Short Temporal Atmospheric Variations Observed by Infrasonic Signals: 1. The Troposphere
- 10.1088/1749-4699/8/1/014003 may be a valid DOI for title: ObsPy: A bridge for seismology into the scientific Python ecosystem
- 10.1175/jtech-d-19-0175.1 may be a valid DOI for title: Multihour stratospheric flights with the heliotrope solar hot-air balloon
- 10.2172/1863279 may be a valid DOI for title: Data Report: TurboWave I and II Data Release.

INVALID DOIs

- None

[kthyng]

Hi @ajakef and thanks for your submission! Unfortunately we have a backlog of submissions at the moment, so I need to add this to a waitlist to wait for availability in a relevant editor. Thank you for your patience.

[kthyng]

@bmcfee Would this be an ok fit for you as editor?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @bmcfee as editor

[bmcfee]

Sure, I can do this one. It's a bit outside my main area, so finding reviewers might take me a bit. Any suggestions from the author would be appreciated!

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[kthyng]

Thanks @bmcfee!

[kthyng]

@editorialbot assign @bmcfee as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @bmcfee is now the editor

[ajakef]

What makes a good JOSS reviewer? I saw the requirement to have a github account and have the software's requirements installed (Python). Is it best to suggest people that have used the software, or people who haven't used the software but potentially could in the future? Does geophysics/infrasound expertise matter?

[kthyng]

@ajakef the reviewers install the software and go through the reviewer checklist, opening up issues on the software repo as they come across them. It's nice to get reviewers who can focus on different aspects of the software: maybe one who is an expert with the subject and another who is more of an expert with the technique. If you find someone who has used the software but is not conflicted, that can be good because they have more specific ideas of what to look for in the software functionality. Otherwise it doesn't matter if they have used it before.

[bmcfee]

Thanks @kthyng!

@ajakef - I'll just add that it's quite alright if you don't have any suggestions. Just let me know either way so we can move ahead with recruiting reviewers.

[ajakef]

Thanks for that clarification. Here are a couple scientists who have github accounts, have used gemlog, and don't have a conflict of interest per https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html#joss-conflict-of-interest-policy. Wes Thelen, thelenwes, Cascades Volcano Observatory, USGS, wthelen@usgs.gov Anna Perttu, aperttu, Massey University, A.Perttu@massey.ac.nz

[ajakef]

@kthyng @bmcfee Just realized that I did not tag you all in my response last month; I hope that didn't delay the review process...

[bmcfee]

No that's alright. I'm still working on finding reviewers; responses had been a bit slow during the holidays. Hoping to get some confirmed within the next week though.

[bmcfee]

Following up: still not having much luck with reviewer recruiting yet, but hoping to get some positive responses soon!

[bmcfee]

@editorialbot add @thelenwes as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@thelenwes added to the reviewers list!

[bmcfee]

Just pinging back that I have been working on finding another reviewer. There's been a lot of radio silence from my requests lately.

[bmcfee]

@editorialbot add @hemmelig as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@hemmelig added to the reviewers list!

[bmcfee]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5256.