[PRE REVIEW]: yam: Yet another monitoring tool using correlations of ambient noise

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@trichter<!--end-author-handle-- (Tom Eulenfeld) Repository: https://github.com/trichter/yam Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss Version: v0.7.1 Editor: !--editor-->@elbeejay<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @hfmark, @hemmelig, @ThomasMGeo Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/85c5634739d01a44322b4e090df9c65b"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/85c5634739d01a44322b4e090df9c65b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/85c5634739d01a44322b4e090df9c65b/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/85c5634739d01a44322b4e090df9c65b)

Author instructions

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

@trichter 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=0.07 s (376.1 files/s, 72574.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          16            515           1042           2823
DOS Batch                        1             34              2            227
make                             1             29              6            181
JSON                             1             25              0            163
YAML                             4              2              5            106
TeX                              1              7              0             87
Markdown                         2             15              0             58
reStructuredText                 1             25             22             19
HTML                             1              0              0             10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            28            652           1077           3674
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1126/science.1070015 is OK
- 10.1016/S0041-624X(02)00156-7 is OK
- 10.1029/2004GL019491 is OK
- 10.1029/2006GL027797 is OK
- 10.1002/2013JB010695 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.138501 is OK
- 10.1785/gssrl.81.3.530 is OK
- 10.1785/0220130073 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 441

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[editorialbot]

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

[kthyng]

Hi @elbeejay! Could you edit this submission?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @elbeejay as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[elbeejay]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @elbeejay is now the editor

[elbeejay]

@trichter I have two requests for you at the moment:

1. 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.
2. Can you add a section to the paper titled "Statement of need"? Hopefully this is self-explanatory, but we require that section so that authors can explicitly outline the need their software package is satisfying. This is designed to make clear to the reader if the paper they are reading is going to be useful for them.

I'll be taking a closer look at the paper and repository this week and will let you know if there are any other obvious changes I think need to happen.

Thanks, Jay

[trichter]

@elbeejay Thank you for editing the submission.

I added a section "Statement of need". The article is relatively short. It is basically just this one section. I hope this is OK.

In the list I found 14 reviewers with topic seismology. Of these I think jkmacc-LANL, d-chambers, seisman, core-man, calum-chamberlain could be potential reviewers for this submission.

[trichter]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[trichter]

Not sure if something is wrong with the bibliography, because Sens-Schönfelder, Christoph, & Eulenfeld, T. (2019) is displayed differently than the other references (in the text with the first name, in the bibliography with the first name spelled out).

[elbeejay]

Not sure if something is wrong with the bibliography, because Sens-Schönfelder, Christoph, & Eulenfeld, T. (2019) is displayed differently than the other references (in the text with the first name, in the bibliography with the first name spelled out).

Thanks for pointing this out. I think it is because the .bib entries are not consistent, the 2006 reference abbreviates Christoph to C., while the 2014 reference uses Christoph, and the 2019 reference also uses Christoph. In the paper the 2006 reference is rendered with the C., the 2014 reference is truncated to "et al." and the 2019 reference has the full first name spelled out. I suggest you make these bibliography entries consistent and I would expect the inconsistency in the text to go away.

[elbeejay]

@ThomasLecocq, @hfmark, @hemmelig, @sbonaime, @brmather I'm reaching out to ask if you'd be interested in reviewing this submission for JOSS titled: "yam: Yet another monitoring tool using correlations of ambient noise". You are all experts in either seismology or geophysics (or both) as far as I can tell, and would be qualified reviewers for this work I believe.

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 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 - I am aware some of you may have contributed to the ObsPy package to which @trichter is also a contributor, so if you are willing to review and have contributed there I would ask that you simply state that fact here, so we are as clear and transparent as possible. It is such a large community project that I do not view being co-contributors to it as a true conflict of interest unless you've worked closely together to develop a specific feature, for example.

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

[hfmark]

Hi @elbeejay - I'd be happy to review this. I haven't worked on obspy directly but, full disclosure, I have contributed to one of @trichter's other projects, rf. That was over a year ago, but if it raises any red flags for you then of course I won't take this on.

[elbeejay]

Thanks for the disclosure @hfmark - I agree that there is no conflict of interest. Will be adding you as a reviewer!

[elbeejay]

@editorialbot add @hfmark as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@hfmark added to the reviewers list!

[brmather]

Hi @elbeejay - I don't think I'm a good person to review this. I don't have any experience in seismic processing, so I would not know how the repo contributes and adds to existing tools. My apologies for this!

[elbeejay]

No problem and no need for apologies @brmather - thanks for letting me know!

[elbeejay]

@ThomasMGeo are you able and willing to review this submission to JOSS?

[hemmelig]

Hi @elbeejay. I'd be more than happy to take on this review. I've no conflicts of interest to declare.

[ThomasMGeo]

Happy to be a reviewer if you are still looking for one

[elbeejay]

@editorialbot add @hemmelig as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@hemmelig added to the reviewers list!

[elbeejay]

@editorialbot add @ThomasMGeo as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@ThomasMGeo added to the reviewers list!

[elbeejay]

Thanks to both @hemmelig and @ThomasMGeo for agreeing to review this submission. We will kick off the official review in a separate issue now.

[elbeejay]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5267.