editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@arcticsnow@hugoledoux<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @dvalters, @arbennett Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8043606

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/91621581b2d0c097495fdd1e58179e87"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/91621581b2d0c097495fdd1e58179e87/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/91621581b2d0c097495fdd1e58179e87/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/91621581b2d0c097495fdd1e58179e87)

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

@dvalters & @arbennett, 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 @hugoledoux 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 @dvalters

📝 Checklist for @arbennett

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=0.31 s (77.2 files/s, 20867.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          17            893           1615           2608
SVG                              1              1              1            644
TeX                              1             32              0            372
Markdown                         2             48              0            175
YAML                             2              8             10             44
INI                              1              9              0             28
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            24            991           1626           3871
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 1038

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5194/gmd-15-1753-2022 is OK
- 10.3389/feart.2022.789332 is OK
- 10.5194/hess-23-4717-2019 is OK
- 10.5194/tc-2021-380 is OK
- 10.5194/esurf-2022-39 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-2022-137 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-8-3867-2015 is OK
- 10.5194/hess-25-4455-2021 is OK
- 10.1029/2018WR023903 is OK
- 10.5194/hess-23-4717-2019 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-7-387-2014 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-5-1245-2012 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-15-1753-2022 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-5-773-2012 is OK
- 10.1016/S0165-232X(02)00074-5 is OK
- 10.1002/qj.3803 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-018-03629-7 is OK
- 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154459 is OK
- 10.1029/2020GL088120 is OK
- 10.1038/s43017-021-00219-y is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0469(2004)061<1377:ALTOOP>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1175/JHM548.1 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-7-2831-2014 is OK
- 10.1175/JHM-D-21-0070.1 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-2022-127 is OK
- 10.5194/hess-2022-241 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.148 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00884 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.3389/feart.2022.789332 may be a valid DOI for title: A Downscaling Intercomparison Study: The Representation of Slope- and Ridge-Scale Processes in Models of Different Complexity

INVALID DOIs

- None

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:

dvalters commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @dvalters

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/ArcticSnow/TopoPyScale?
[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 (@arcticsnow) 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?

arbennett commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @arbennett

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/ArcticSnow/TopoPyScale?
[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 (@arcticsnow) 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?

hugoledoux commented 1 year ago

@arbennett @dvalters just a reminder that we'd like to give feedback to the authors this month, if possible

dvalters commented 1 year ago

@hugoledoux apologies for the delay, will review today! :)

dvalters commented 1 year ago

Very interesting submission @ArcticSnow! I'm just having a few issues getting the example to run here, I wondered if you could point out where I might be going wrong: https://github.com/ArcticSnow/TopoPyScale/issues/55

ArcticSnow commented 1 year ago

Thank you @dvalters , please see my response in the issue. I made a version release v0.2.0 today of the library. If you installed it yesterday, please make sure to either pull the repo (if installed in dev version), or update the install (if install the pip release). Also, git pull the example repository too.

ArcticSnow commented 1 year ago

In case you are still testing the library, a key bug (introduced the last month) was identified and corrected this week. I hope this will not hinder your appreciation of the library, if using the latest version (v0.2).

dvalters commented 1 year ago

Thanks @ArcticSnow I will aim to have the review completed by early next week, So far I don't envisage any significant changes or revisions, only minor comments. :)

Edit: Any comments/feedback I had were resolved in the repository issue tracker by the authors)

hugoledoux commented 1 year ago

@dvalters any progress on the review?

dvalters commented 1 year ago

All good from me. I was able to make it work in the end and see the results reproduced.

arbennett commented 1 year ago

Hi @ArcticSnow - apologies for being so delayed on this, but I was able to finish up my review today. Overall I think this is a nice library that brings tons of value to the table for making climate/reanalysis data more actionable. Thank you for the submission, I could see myself using this in the future! Below is my formal review. I'll open up a few issues on the documentation and examples repositories that correspond to these comments.

Overview

TopoPyScale is a python package for downscaling meteorological data to fine spatial resolutions. It is built on many of the standard toolkits being used in the geosciences, and implements the core downscaling routines from a previous methodology, TopoScale. TopoPyScale provides a computationally frugal and streamlined workflow, which are both invaluable features for enabling many modeling studies. Additionally the authors provide numerous options for input/output formatting and tweaking the core algorithms.

I found TopoPyScale relatively straightforward to get up and running, but difficult to actually use due to a lack of documentation and incomplete examples. Overall I think this tool would be very valuable for anyone who knows how to use it, so after some changes to the documentation and the examples I would find it suitable for publication in JOSS.

Major comments

The majority of my comments arose when actually using TopoPyScale on the examples. The only large change I would suggest making to the paper would be a table listing what variables are able to be downscaled, if such a limitation exists.

Variables in the output are lacking metadata when written as netcdf files.
The examples have some hard coding of paths and other things, and are lacking documentation in a way that made it difficult for me to get up and running. I would try to possibly streamline this experience and possibly even get a binder link set up so that people just exploring TopoPyScale can try out the examples directly in the browser.
Example scripts for norway_finse runs both the distributed and pointwise downscaling, but they overwrite eachother.
It wasn't clear to me how to get the full gridded product back out rather than just points. I went looking around in the examples and docs but couldn't readily find information about it. More generally I felt like there were many options in the configuration, but it was hard to know what the effects of changing some of them would be. I see there is some listing of options in the example yaml file in the documentation but I found it hard to scroll around there, and would find it much easier to search documentation where options are explicitly enumerated and described.
There appear to be no tests, but it seems like with the examples something like a benchmark dataset could be included to make sure that the model operates properly?

Minor comments

In compare_obs.ipynb in TopoPyScale_examples the matplotlib styles are not installed by default, so I would remove this.
Also the metno*.pckl files for compare_obs.ipynb do not seem to exist in the examples.
On https://topopyscale.readthedocs.io/en/latest/06_examples/, under warning 2: "a large amount of verbose" -> "a large amount of verbose output"

ArcticSnow commented 1 year ago

@arbennett , @dvalters , Thank you for your time reviewing and suggesting constructive changes to the paper and the software. I am currently in the field for most of April, and will accomplish all suggestions in May for an updated version.

ArcticSnow commented 1 year ago

Revision in Progress

Minor comments:

[x] In compare_obs.ipynb in TopoPyScale_examples the matplotlib styles are not installed by default, so I would remove this. -> line removed
[x] Also the metno.pckl files for compare_obs.ipynb do not seem to exist in the examples.* -> added to the github repo here
[x] On https://topopyscale.readthedocs.io/en/latest/06_examples/, under warning 2: "a large amount of verbose" -> "a large amount of verbose output" -> Corrected

Major comments:

[x] Example scripts for norway_finse runs both the distributed and pointwise downscaling, but they overwrite eachother. -> now those are split into two scripts pipeline_spatial.py and pipeline_point.py. pipeline_testing.py was also added to run a test in github Action.
[x] There appear to be no tests, but it seems like with the examples something like a benchmark dataset could be included to make sure that the model operates properly? -> Github Action script test_topopyscale.yml setup a VE from environment.yml file, lint the package with Flake8, clone the latest ex1_norway_finse example, and finally run the script pipeline_test.py. This is a basic spatialized downscaling script over two months.
[x] It wasn't clear to me how to get the full gridded product back out rather than just points. I went looking around in the examples and docs but couldn't readily find information about it. -> A new part is now added to the plotting section.
[x] More generally I felt like there were many options in the configuration, but it was hard to know what the effects of changing some of them would be. I see there is some listing of options in the example yaml file in the documentation but I found it hard to scroll around there, and would find it much easier to search documentation where options are explicitly enumerated and described. -> A whole new table was added to explicit all options available for the config.yml file.
[x] Variables in the output are lacking metadata when written as netcdf files. -> this was added in the file topo_scale.py as dataset attributes
[x] The examples have some hard coding of paths and other things, and are lacking documentation in a way that made it difficult for me to get up and running. I would try to possibly streamline this experience and possibly even get a binder link set up so that people just exploring TopoPyScale can try out the examples directly in the browser. -> Two Binder Notebooks were added for example 1: https://mybinder.org/v2/gh/ArcticSnow/TopoPyScale_examples/HEAD
[x] The only large change I would suggest making to the paper would be a table listing what variables are able to be downscaled, if such a limitation exists. -> Table 1 was added to describe downscaled variables.

hugoledoux commented 1 year ago

@arbennett @dvalters just a heads-up that the submission has been updated (with a clear summary just above), so if you could check it and update your checklist.

thanks!

ArcticSnow 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:

ArcticSnow commented 1 year ago

Dear all, You will find an updated and revised version of the code (V0.2.2) and the paper following all the constructive suggestions. I hope this fulfills the requirements and is satisfactory for future users of the library. You may see the checklist above in this discussion thread. I'd be happy to know if you identify further obvious improvements to perform. Thank you

arbennett commented 1 year ago

Awesome, thank you so much @hugoledoux and @ArcticSnow! The changes look great, I'm particularly thankful for the table of configuration options in the docs and the updated example notebooks. I'm happy to say that I think this is ready to be accepted!

ArcticSnow commented 1 year ago

Thank you @arbennett and @dvalters for your positive responses to the latest changes. @hugoledoux, is there something I may do to pursue further the publishing process in JOSS?

hugoledoux commented 1 year ago

I was on holidays, sorry for the delays.

You do not need to do anything at the moment, I'll proof-read the paper and double-check all the submission, and you might have to change a few things. Later today or on Monday.

hugoledoux commented 1 year ago

Ok, I went through the paper and fixed/proposed a few minor things: https://github.com/ArcticSnow/TopoPyScale/pull/88

Also, the "force" in that sentence makes no sense to me: The results can then be exported in a number of formats that are able to force specialized land surface models for snow but perhaps it is fine in your community.

After you've fix those, could you:

[ ] Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here.
[ ] 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.
[ ] Please list the DOI of the archived version here.

I can then move forward with recommending acceptance of the submission.

hugoledoux commented 1 year ago

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

[ ] Double check authors and affiliations (including ORCIDs)
[ ] Make a release of the software with the latest changes from the review and post the version number here. This is the version that will be used in the JOSS paper.
[ ] Archive the release on Zenodo/figshare/etc and post the DOI here.
[ ] Make sure that the title and author list (including ORCIDs) in the archive match those in the JOSS paper.
[ ] Make sure that the license listed for the archive is the same as the software license.

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance

[x] Read the text of the paper and offer comments/corrections (as either a list or a PR)
[x] Check the references in the paper for corrections (e.g. capitalization)
[x] Check that the archive title, author list, version tag, and the license are correct
[x] Set archive DOI with @editorialbot set <DOI here> as archive
[x] Set version with @editorialbot set <version here> as version
[x] Double check rendering of paper with @editorialbot generate pdf
[x] Specifically check the references with @editorialbot check references and ask author(s) to update as needed
[x] Recommend acceptance with @editorialbot recommend-accept

ArcticSnow commented 1 year ago

Thank you @hugoledoux

right it sounds odd. I modified it to this The results can then be exported in a number of formats that can be used as forcing for specialized land surface models for snow,...
I create a new release tag v0.2.3. It is also pushed on Pypi
archived on Zenodo at this DOI:10.5281/zenodo.8043606

-[x] Double check authors and affiliations (including ORCIDs) -[x] Make a release of the software with the latest changes from the review and post the version number here. This is the version that will be used in the JOSS paper. -[x] Archive the release on Zenodo/figshare/etc and post the DOI here. -[x] Make sure that the title and author list (including ORCIDs) in the archive match those in the JOSS paper. -[x] Make sure that the license listed for the archive is the same as the software license. License is: MIT License

Please let me know if anything else is needed or missing. Thank you

hugoledoux 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:

ArcticSnow commented 1 year ago

I just identified a typo in the paper.

ArcticSnow commented 1 year ago

Ok pushed a correction of the typo line 13 in the draft. Should I start over the archiving?

hugoledoux commented 1 year ago

Ok pushed a correction of the typo line 13 in the draft. Should I start over the archiving?

no for one typo it's fine, we archive the latest version here.

and after me, the EiC might ask for minor changes too.

hugoledoux commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.8043606 as archive

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.8043606

hugoledoux commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot set v0.2.3 as version

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Done! version is now v0.2.3

hugoledoux 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

- 10.5194/gmd-15-1753-2022 is OK
- 10.3389/feart.2022.789332 is OK
- 10.5194/hess-23-4717-2019 is OK
- 10.5194/tc-2021-380 is OK
- 10.5194/esurf-2022-39 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-15-9127-2022 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-8-3867-2015 is OK
- 10.5194/hess-25-4455-2021 is OK
- 10.1029/2018WR023903 is OK
- 10.5194/hess-23-4717-2019 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-7-387-2014 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-5-1245-2012 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-15-1753-2022 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-5-773-2012 is OK
- 10.1016/S0165-232X(02)00074-5 is OK
- 10.1002/qj.3803 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-018-03629-7 is OK
- 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154459 is OK
- 10.1029/2020GL088120 is OK
- 10.1038/s43017-021-00219-y is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0469(2004)061<1377:ALTOOP>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1175/JHM548.1 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-7-2831-2014 is OK
- 10.1175/JHM-D-21-0070.1 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-16-2607-2023 is OK
- 10.5194/hess-2022-241 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.148 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00884 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.3389/feart.2022.789332 may be a valid DOI for title: A Downscaling Intercomparison Study: The Representation of Slope- and Ridge-Scale Processes in Models of Different Complexity

INVALID DOIs

- None

hugoledoux commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5194/gmd-15-1753-2022 is OK
- 10.3389/feart.2022.789332 is OK
- 10.5194/hess-23-4717-2019 is OK
- 10.5194/tc-2021-380 is OK
- 10.5194/esurf-2022-39 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-15-9127-2022 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-8-3867-2015 is OK
- 10.5194/hess-25-4455-2021 is OK
- 10.1029/2018WR023903 is OK
- 10.5194/hess-23-4717-2019 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-7-387-2014 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-5-1245-2012 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-15-1753-2022 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-5-773-2012 is OK
- 10.1016/S0165-232X(02)00074-5 is OK
- 10.1002/qj.3803 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-018-03629-7 is OK
- 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154459 is OK
- 10.1029/2020GL088120 is OK
- 10.1038/s43017-021-00219-y is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0469(2004)061<1377:ALTOOP>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1175/JHM548.1 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-7-2831-2014 is OK
- 10.1175/JHM-D-21-0070.1 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-16-2607-2023 is OK
- 10.5194/hess-2022-241 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.148 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00884 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.3389/feart.2022.789332 may be a valid DOI for title: A Downscaling Intercomparison Study: The Representation of Slope- and Ridge-Scale Processes in Models of Different Complexity

INVALID DOIs

- None

hugoledoux commented 1 year ago

🎉 congrats @ArcticSnow this was a nice submission that required little feedback, most of the material was already there ❤️

thanks @dvalters and @arbennett for the help!

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:warning: Error preparing paper acceptance. The generated XML metadata file is invalid.

ID ref-hess-23-4717-2019 already defined
ID ref-gmd-15-1753-2022 already defined

hugoledoux commented 1 year ago

uh oh, something went wrong here. Could one @openjournals/joss-eics help here?

kyleniemeyer commented 1 year ago

@openjournals/dev any idea how to interpret/fix the above error?

ArcticSnow commented 1 year ago

@hugoledoux and @kyleniemeyer , it was simply a doubling of the references indicated by the bot inside the paper.bib file. I pushed a correction. My bad.

hugoledoux commented 1 year ago

@openjournals/ese-eics it seems the hiccup has been solved, can someone take care of formally accepting the paper please?

kthyng commented 1 year ago

@hugoledoux Thanks for the ping, this submission was never actually labeled as ready to go due to the error. I'll take a look at moving things forward now.

kthyng commented 1 year ago

[x] Check that version was updated
[x] Check that software archive exists, has been input to JOSS, and title and author list look good
[x] Check paper

openjournals / joss-reviews

[REVIEW]: TopoPyScale: A Python Package for Hillslope Climate Downscaling #5059

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

Review checklist for @dvalters

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @arbennett

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Overview

Major comments

Minor comments

Revision in Progress

Minor comments:

Major comments:

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance