search

openjournals / joss-reviews

Reviews for the Journal of Open Source Software
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
721 stars 38 forks source link

[PRE REVIEW]: fractopo: A Python package for fracture network analysis #5096

Closed editorialbot closed 1 year ago

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@nialov<!--end-author-handle-- (Nikolas Ovaskainen) Repository: https://github.com/nialov/fractopo Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v0.5.2 Editor: !--editor-->@elbeejay<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @dglaeser, @lachlangrose Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4802347c7e5918ebc751e82340773796"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4802347c7e5918ebc751e82340773796/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4802347c7e5918ebc751e82340773796/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4802347c7e5918ebc751e82340773796)

Author instructions

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

@nialov 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 commented 1 year ago

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 commented 1 year ago 
Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=1.10 s (131.8 files/s, 311960.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JSON                            26              0              0         312997
Python                          60           2683           4509          12285
TeX                              2            334              0           5693
YAML                            14             21            100            690
reStructuredText                29            469            503            686
Markdown                         3            188              0            338
Nix                              2             39             96            265
TOML                             1             19             10            150
Jupyter Notebook                 3              0            993            141
SVG                              1              0              0             21
Bourne Shell                     2              4              0              9
Lua                              1              0              0              5
XML                              1              0              0              2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           145           3757           6211         333282
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 847

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:

editorialbot commented 1 year ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.2113/gsecongeo.93.3.360 is OK
- 10.1306/11051010026 is OK
- 10.1016/j.precamres.2019.04.016 is OK
- 10.1130/GES01595.1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2015.10.007 is OK
- 10.1007/s10064-009-0235-9 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2016.09.008 is OK
- 10.1002/2016WR018973 is OK
- 10.17741/bgsf/88.2.003 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2018.04.011 is OK
- 10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.11.006 is OK
- 10.3390/en14175488 is OK
- 10.1002/2015JB011879 is OK
- 10.1016/0191-8141(94)90151-1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2017.02.019 is OK
- 10.5194/se-8-1241-2017 is OK
- 10.1144/GSL.SP.2007.270.01.01 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2021.104304 is OK
- 10.1029/2000WR000180 is OK
- 10.3390/rs4061573 is OK
- 10.1080/11035897.2015.1068370 is OK
- 10.1016/j.earscirev.2018.06.006 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2017.08.004 is OK
- 10.1007/s11053-016-9321-4 is OK
- 10.1007/s10040-004-0397-2 is OK
- 10.1016/S0191-8141(99)00186-8 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2011.05.004 is OK
- 10.1130/0091-7613(1999)027<0799:EOPLSF>2.3.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2018.07.011 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2016.12.003 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2015.12.021 is OK
- 10.1144/petgeo2019-010 is OK
- 10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.103055 is OK
- 10.1029/WR022i013p01845 is OK
- 10.1002/esp.317 is OK
- 10.1029/2012JB009461 is OK
- 10.1007/s10040-020-02178-y is OK
- 10.3189/172756481794352504 is OK
- 10.1144/SP496-2018-151 is OK
- 10.1029/2009JB007043 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.65.2266 is OK
- 10.1016/j.tust.2014.03.012 is OK
- 10.1016/j.oregeorev.2015.12.001 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2015.08.001 is OK
- 10.1016/0301-9268(91)90102-G is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2018.06.019 is OK
- 10.1126/science.269.5224.676 is OK
- 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001718 is OK
- 10.1016/S1365-1609(00)00027-7 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2014.07.003 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2003.08.002 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2015.02.001 is OK
- 10.1144/GSL.SP.1999.158.01.10 is OK
- 10.17741/bgsf/86.2.003 is OK
- 10.1007/s10346-013-0410-8 is OK
- 10.1016/j.gca.2016.05.017 is OK
- 10.1130/B31215.1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.tecto.2011.04.002 is OK
- 10.1080/11035897.2015.1085434 is OK
- 10.1007/s10040-006-0134-0 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jngse.2013.01.003 is OK
- 10.1137/070710111 is OK
- 10.1016/0191-8141(86)90021-0 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2014.04.012 is OK
- 10.1029/94TC02905 is OK
- 10.1029/WR018i003p00645 is OK
- 10.1080/03009480310004152 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2021.104471 is OK
- 10.3390/app11041698 is OK
- 10.1109/5.58325 is OK
- 10.1029/2008JB005588 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2017.07.008 is OK
- 10.1130/GSAT01711A.1 is OK
- 10.1016/S0191-8141(00)00094-8 is OK
- 10.1016/S0309-1708(02)00042-8 is OK
- 10.1016/j.precamres.2017.10.014 is OK
- 10.1016/S0074-6142(03)80023-2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2017.11.012 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2017.11.013 is OK
- 10.1016/S0191-8141(96)80042-3 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2020.104160 is OK
- 10.1007/BF00140017 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2020.104212 is OK
- 10.1306/61EEDE0E-173E-11D7-8645000102C1865D is OK
- 10.2118/10509-PA is OK
- 10.1007/s10704-004-3177-z is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2016.12.005 is OK
- 10.17741/bgsf/71.2.005 is OK
- 10.1029/2001JB000176 is OK
- 10.1016/0034-4257(76)90055-9 is OK
- 10.1177/0309133309346648 is OK
- 10.1016/S0148-9062(97)00340-9 is OK
- 10.1144/GSL.SP.2003.214.01.07 is OK
- 10.1016/S0191-8141(96)80044-7 is OK
- 10.17741/bgsf/89.2.ed is OK
- 10.1130/0016-7606(1967)78[609:JITAPO]2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.5194/se-10-487-2019 is OK
- 10.1016/S1365-1609(02)00011-4 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2012.10.021 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2015.05.013 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.07.014 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2017.11.010 is OK
- 10.17850/njg99-1-06 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-0-12-410438-9.00013-3 is OK
- 10.1002/2017WR020943 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2006.05.010 is OK
- 10.1007/BF00876716 is OK
- 10.1016/j.precamres.2019.02.003 is OK
- 10.1046/j.0263-5046.2001.00142.x is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2021.104327 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0085777 is OK
- 10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.09.008 is OK
- 10.1080/10807039609383659 is OK
- 10.1190/geo2011-0302.1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jag.2017.08.008 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-0-12-066266-1.50013-2 is OK
- 10.1139/e88-098 is OK
- 10.1130/0016-7606(1977)88<1231:SOFSUA>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2015.01.005 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2017.07.009 is OK
- 10.2478/pcr-2018-0004 is OK
- 10.1029/96WR00433 is OK
- 10.1306/08250505059 is OK
- 10.1190/1.3663400 is OK
- 10.1016/j.oregeorev.2013.01.010 is OK
- 10.1144/SP292.21 is OK
- 10.3390/geosciences11070280 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-0-12-083980-3.50005-X is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2017.02.002 is OK
- 10.1016/0191-8141(94)90045-0 is OK
- 10.1029/JB085iB08p04337 is OK
- 10.5194/se-11-1731-2020 is OK
- 10.1016/j.physa.2006.11.025 is OK
- 10.1002/grl.50313 is OK
- 10.1016/S0191-8141(00)00099-7 is OK
- 10.1016/S0191-8141(01)00050-5 is OK
- 10.1306/02131312042 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2009.05.012 is OK
- 10.1016/0148-9062(90)90998-H is OK
- 10.1016/j.tecto.2013.12.006 is OK
- 10.1016/j.precamres.2019.02.004 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2020.104065 is OK
- 10.1029/1999RG000074 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2017.06.002 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2010.10.002 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1990.tb00760.x is OK
- 10.1029/93JB00372 is OK
- 10.1029/2017WR022073 is OK
- 10.1144/SP421.4 is OK
- 10.1029/JB088iB03p02359 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2021.104314 is OK
- 10.1002/esp.1210 is OK
- 10.17741/bgsf/84.2.001 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2020.104016 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2017.08.001 is OK
- 10.1007/s10040-013-1080-2 is OK
- 10.1130/0091-7613(1991)019<0617:TFPF>2.3.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2016.01.005 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2007.07.010 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.28.3799 is OK
- 10.1029/2004JB003164 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03021 is OK
- 10.1016/S0301-9268(97)00039-9 is OK
- 10.2307/1467286 is OK
- 10.5194/se-11-2221-2020 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2010.06.009 is OK
- 10.3934/geosci.2016.3.214 is OK
- 10.1080/10106049.2015.1059899 is OK
- 10.1080/19475705.2014.996612 is OK
- 10.1016/S0040-1951(02)00669-8 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jog.2011.08.005 is OK
- 10.1016/S0166-2635(05)80013-1 is OK
- 10.3390/geosciences11120501 is OK
- 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2021.12.006 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2022.104528 is OK
- 10.1029/2021GL093549 is OK
- 10.1029/2020GL090461 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2022.104556 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2009.04.006 is OK
- 10.1016/j.tecto.2012.03.021 is OK
- 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2012.07.003 is OK
- 10.2118/20981-MS is OK
- 10.1016/S0191-8141(97)00041-2 is OK
- 10.1029/95JB02242 is OK
- 10.1029/JB090iB14p12575 is OK
- 10.1144/GSL.SP.2006.261.01.03 is OK
- 10.1016/S0303-2434(01)85002-9 is OK
- 10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.10.004 is OK
- 10.3390/app12062864 is OK
- 10.1029/2009WR008671 is OK
- 10.1016/j.enggeo.2022.106648 is OK
- 10.1016/j.tecto.2022.229208 is OK
- 10.1007/978-94-011-1498-1 is OK
- 10.1109/IGARSS47720.2021.9553232 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2021.104444 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2022.104596 is OK
- 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2022.105689 is OK
- 10.5194/egusphere-egu21-4613 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01450 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104556 is OK
- 10.5194/se-10-2137-2019 is OK
- 10.1130/G30576.1 is OK
- 10.1017/S0016756822000309 is OK
- 10.2110/sedred.2022.1.2 is OK
- 10.3390/geosciences11090371 is OK
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3182332 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2022.104664 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2022.104675 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2022.104682 is OK
- 10.1007/BF01019674 is OK
- 10.1190/1.1651454 is OK
- 10.1029/2021JE007118 is OK
- 10.1016/j.precamres.2007.08.002 is OK
- 10.1186/s40517-022-00221-7 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2012.10.002 is OK
- 10.1016/0040-1951(95)00030-Q is OK
- 10.1144/petgeo.5.4.373 is OK
- 10.1016/0191-8141(82)90004-9 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2022.104691 is OK
- 10.1007/s12517-022-10668-4 is OK
- 10.5194/se-2021-118 is OK
- 10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.09.017 is OK
- 10.1134/S0742046318060064 is OK
- 10.18814/epiiugs/1992/v15i1/012 is OK
- 10.1130/GES02488.1 is OK
- 10.1029/2022JB024424 is OK
- 10.3389/feart.2021.778811 is OK
- 10.5194/se-13-1431-2022 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2021.110715 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2022.104726 is OK
- 10.1017/S0263593300007859 is OK
- 10.17741/bgsf/77.2.004 is OK
- 10.1017/aog.2019.36 is OK
- 10.1046/j.1365-3121.1999.00250.x is OK
- 10.1016/j.precamres.2005.01.001 is OK
- 10.1130/0016-7606(1970)81[1625:SBSZOD]2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1007/s10596-018-9778-9 is OK
- 10.1016/0169-7722(93)90023-L is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2019.103868 is OK
- 10.1002/jgrb.50120 is OK
- 10.1016/j.geomorph.2020.107283 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jrmge.2022.09.011 is OK
- 10.1016/0191-8141(90)90093-E is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-017-11027-0 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2022.104748 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.7298370 is OK
- 10.3389/fmats.2022.929639 is OK
- 10.5006/1.3319133 is OK
- 10.1144/GSL.SP.2003.212.01.06 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2021.104724 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.7373013 is OK
- 10.1080/11035890701291055 is OK
- 10.5840/enviroethics19813240 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7262879 is OK
- 10.1186/s40517-022-00241-3 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-0348-6389-6_16 may be a valid DOI for title: Fractured but not fractal: Fragmentation of the gulf of suez basement
- 10.1016/s1365-1609(97)80069-x may be a valid DOI for title: Practical Estimates of Rock Mass Strength
- 10.17741/bgsf/94.1.001 may be a valid DOI for title: Timing of syn-orogenic, high-grade transtensional shear zone formation in the West Uusimaa Complex, Finland
- 10.25080/majora-342d178e-021 may be a valid DOI for title: pandera: Statistical Data Validation of Pandas Dataframes
- 10.1002/essoar.10508400.1 may be a valid DOI for title: Fractal and multifractal characterization of stochastic fracture networks and real outcrops
- 10.3390/rs13245086 may be a valid DOI for title: QDC-2D: A Semi-Automatic Tool for 2D Analysis of Discontinuities for Rock Mass Characterization
- 10.2113/gseegeosci.23.3.179 may be a valid DOI for title: A New Application of CurvaTool Semi-Automatic Approach to Qualitatively Detect Geological Lineaments
- 10.1016/j.lithos.2004.04.057 may be a valid DOI for title: Comparison of Proterozoic and Phanerozoic rift-related basaltic-granitic magmatism
- 10.17741/bgsf/94.2.002 may be a valid DOI for title: Palaeoproterozoic structural evolution of polyphase migmatites in Olkiluoto, SW Finland

INVALID DOIs

- None
kthyng commented 1 year ago

Hi @nialov and thanks for your submission! Unfortunately our relevant editors are fully booked at the moment, so I will add this to our waitlist. Thank you for your patience.

kthyng commented 1 year ago

@nialov Thank you for your patience. We have two new editors coming on next week so my hope is to get your submission taken up by one of them.

kthyng commented 1 year ago

@elbeejay would you be willing to take on this submission?

kthyng commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot invite @elbeejay as editor

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot assign me as editor

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Assigned! @elbeejay is now the editor

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

Hi @nialov thank you for your submission and we appreciate your patience.

Do you have any suggestions for reviewers of your work? JOSS maintains a list of potential reviewers, but we are also very receptive to any suggestions you may be have who have expertise in your field.

My only request at this time in terms of the paper/code, is that you reduce the entries in the paper.bib file to only include those references that are cited in the paper. I am not sure why our bot parses them all, but as you can see from the reference check comment above, there are a number of references with un-findable DOIs. At a glance it doesn't look like any of those are actually in the paper, so it'd be preferable if they were simply removed from the .bib file.

Thanks, Jay

nialov commented 1 year ago

Hey @elbeejay and thanks for picking up my submission!

Filtering the .bib file is no problem. I believe I already had tested a lua filter that filters based on what is actually used. I will also post some suggestions for reviewers here. Will get these done in a day or two!

nialov commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot check references @editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 year ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1130/GES01595.1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2021.104304 is OK
- 10.1029/2000WR000180 is OK
- 10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.103055 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0085777 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2015.01.005 is OK
- 10.1029/1999RG000074 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03021 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jsg.2022.104528 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7262879 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
nialov commented 1 year ago

Suggested Reviewers

Outside the spreadsheet:

From the spreadsheet:

Beyond these suggestions, I could not point out anyone specifically from the spreadsheet. Anyone with a combination of GIS/spatial analysis/geospatial/geoscience and (structural) geology would be appropriate as far as I can tell.

geopandas and shapely are heavily used in my library so the people familiar with them could probably by constructive (From spreadsheet: martinfleis; outside spreadsheet: brendan-ward, jorisvandenbossche).

Hopefully helpful! Let me know if more suggestions are needed. I tried to filter to people at least somewhat familiar with GitHub.

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

Thanks @nialov that is very helpful and exactly what I was looking for - I'll begin reaching out to potential reviewers today

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

@BjornNyberg and @dglaeser, would either of you be interested in reviewing this submission to JOSS titled: "fractopo: A Python package for fracture network analysis"? You have both developed similar tools, NetworkGT (@BjornNyberg) and frackit (@dglaeser) making you ideal reviewers for this submission.

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 2-3 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! If interested we can figure out how to set up a "co-review" for a colleague of yours that is a more junior or inexperienced member of the community.

Thanks, Jay

dglaeser commented 1 year ago

@BjornNyberg and @dglaeser, would either of you be interested in reviewing this submission to JOSS titled: "fractopo: A Python package for fracture network analysis"? You have both developed similar tools, NetworkGT (@BjornNyberg) and frackit (@dglaeser) making you ideal reviewers for this submission.

@elbeejay, I could provide a review, no problem.

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

That'd be fantastic, thanks @dglaeser - I'll add you now and will be starting the review once another reviewer or two are found.

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot add @dglaeser as reviewer

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

@dglaeser added to the reviewers list!

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

@cwnixon would you be interested in reviewing this submission, "fractopo: A Python package for fracture network analysis", to JOSS? As a developer of NetworkGT, you'd be an ideal reviewer for this submission.

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 2-3 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! If interested we can figure out how to set up a "co-review" for a colleague of yours that is a more junior or inexperienced member of the community.

Let me know, thanks. Jay

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

@rowanc1 and @lheagy, would either of you be interested in reviewing this submission to JOSS? I believe you both have the geophysical / structural geology background and programming expertise needed to provide useful reviews.

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 2-3 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! If interested we can figure out how to set up a "co-review" for a colleague of yours that is a more junior or inexperienced member of the community.

Let me know, thanks. Jay

lheagy commented 1 year ago

Hi Jay, thanks for reaching out! I, unfortunately, do not have time to take this on at the moment.

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

No problem, thanks for letting us know @lheagy

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

@Fer071989, @lachlangrose, @ICWallis, and @nicmenegoni would any of you be interested in reviewing this submission, "fractopo: A Python package for fracture network analysis", to JOSS? As geoscientists and scientific programmers with experience working on projects such as LoopStructural, fractoolbox, and DICE, I thought you'd all be more than qualified to review this package.

JOSS is a developer friendly, open access journal for research software packages. 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 2-3 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! If interested we can figure out how to set up a "co-review" for a colleague of yours that is a more junior or inexperienced member of the community.

Let me know, thanks. Jay

lachlangrose commented 1 year ago

Hi @elbeejay I would be happy to review the code/paper.

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

Fantastic, thank you @lachlangrose !

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot add @lachlangrose as reviewer

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

@lachlangrose added to the reviewers list!

ICWallis commented 1 year ago

Apologies, I can not participate because I am in the last 2 month write up of my PhD. Please consider me in future and thank you to those who are able to take time to review.

Sent from a phone (typos and autocorrect included for your amusement)

On 24/03/2023, at 1:30 AM, The Open Journals editorial robot @.***> wrote:



@lachlangrosehttps://github.com/lachlangrose added to the reviewers list!

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5096#issuecomment-1481112245, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJVNGQ6RUR7QURM4UJZNS5DW5Q66BANCNFSM6AAAAAAUEJCP6U. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

Fer071989 commented 1 year ago

Hi Jay,

Thanks for your email. I am finishing my PhD in the next two months as well, so I am not able to review the paper/code, but I would be happy to help in the future.

Kind regards, Fernanda

On Wed, 22 Mar 2023, 09:32 J. Hariharan, @.***> wrote:

@Fer071989 https://github.com/Fer071989, @lachlangrose https://github.com/lachlangrose, @ICWallis https://github.com/ICWallis, and @nicmenegoni https://github.com/nicmenegoni would any of you be interested in reviewing this submission, "fractopo: A Python package for fracture network analysis", to JOSS? As geoscientists and scientific programmers with experience working on projects such as LoopStructural, fractoolbox, and DICE, I thought you'd all be more than qualified to review this package.

JOSS is a developer friendly, open access journal for research software packages. At JOSS we do open checklist-driven reviews; peer-review criteria can be viewed here https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html. This issue is a "pre-review issue" which we use to find peer-reviewers. Once 2-3 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 https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html?#joss-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! If interested we can figure out how to set up a "co-review" for a colleague of yours that is a more junior or inexperienced member of the community.

Let me know, thanks. Jay

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5096#issuecomment-1479492489, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANBACU5ICY7PRSZD3L2REH3W5LWOBANCNFSM6AAAAAAUEJCP6U . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

ICWallis commented 1 year ago

Good luck with your PhD Fernanda. Last push!

Sent from a phone (typos and autocorrect included for your amusement)

On 24/03/2023, at 4:38 PM, Fernanda Alvarado-Neves @.***> wrote:

Fernanda

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

Yes good luck to you both @ICWallis and @Fer071989!

In the interest of keeping this submission moving along, we'll proceed to the next stage of this process and give @dglaeser and @lachlangrose some time to conduct their reviews.

elbeejay commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot start review

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5300.