[PRE REVIEW]: NERD: Numerical Estimation of Rodenticide Density

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@devarops<!--end-author-handle-- (Evaristo Rojas Mayoral) Repository: https://github.com/IslasGECI/nerd Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@marcosvital<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @ashleefv, @jhabriel, @david-yannick Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f68799e8216e0ed1c1d06feb095e6994"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f68799e8216e0ed1c1d06feb095e6994/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f68799e8216e0ed1c1d06feb095e6994/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f68799e8216e0ed1c1d06feb095e6994)

Author instructions

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

@devarops if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

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=0.10 s (420.2 files/s, 33842.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          26            226             81           1166
Markdown                         2            134              0            408
JSON                             3              0              0            150
Jupyter Notebook                 3              0            630            131
YAML                             3              1              0            129
TeX                              1             10              0            121
make                             1             13              0             64
Dockerfile                       1              0              0             18
Bourne Shell                     1              3              5             12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            41            387            716           2199
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 2295

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/s10530-008-9402-3 is OK
- 10.1098/rsbl.2003.0153 is OK
- 10.1016/0272-7714(86)90028-4 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00859.x is OK
- 10.3354/meps06860 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02464.x may be a valid DOI for title: A global review of the impacts of invasive cats on island endangered vertebrates
- 10.1007/s10530-005-0421-z may be a valid DOI for title: Have the harmful effects of introduced rats on islands been exaggerated?

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[kthyng]

Hi @devarops and thanks for your submission! I am going to ping the editorial board now to see if they think it is in scope for JOSS, the main question being substantial scholarly effort, since this is close to the 1000 LOC cut off.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot query scope

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[devarops]

Thank you, @kthyng. Are you counting only the 1166 lines of Python code?

[devarops]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @devarops, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

[devarops]

@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:

[kthyng]

@devarops Yes, that 1166 is what I am going off of.

[devarops]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/s10530-008-9402-3 is OK
- 10.1098/rsbl.2003.0153 is OK
- 10.1016/0272-7714(86)90028-4 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00859.x is OK
- 10.3354/meps06860 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02464.x is OK
- 10.1038/35002501 is OK
- 10.1007/s10530-005-0421-z is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[devarops]

@editorialbot check repository

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.37 s (112.2 files/s, 618396.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          26            226             81           1166
Markdown                         2            136              0            382
JSON                             3              0              0            150
Jupyter Notebook                 3              0         223223            131
YAML                             3              1              0            129
TeX                              1             10              0            125
make                             1             13              0             64
Dockerfile                       1              0              0             18
Bourne Shell                     1              3              5             12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            41            389         223309           2177
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 2160

[editorialbot]

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

[kthyng]

Hi @devarops — a specific concern was brought up during scope review I'd like your commentary on:

The algorithm implemented does not seem to be published anywhere, but is instead presented in the paper they submit to JOSS. In my view, this is a significant drawback, since in JOSS the software is reviewed, not the algorithm. I suggest they first submit their algorithm to a relevant journal and have it peer reviewed, and then submit the implementation to JOSS.

Does the algorithm described in your JOSS paper exist elsewhere, described in the literature, or is this a new algorithm?

[devarops]

Does the algorithm described in your JOSS paper exist elsewhere, described in the literature, or is this a new algorithm?

@kthyng: The algorithm mentioned in our JOSS paper has already been introduced and discussed in the scientific literature. Specifically, it was originally presented in the following paper:

• Rojas-Mayoral, E., Méndez-Sánchez, F. A., Rojas-Mayoral, B., & Aguirre-Muñoz, A. (2019). Improving the efficiency of aerial rodent eradications by means of the numerical estimation of rodenticide density. SPREP LIBRARY, 47–50. https://library.sprep.org/sites/default/files/improving-efficiency-aerial-rodent-eradications-means-numerical-estimation-rodenticide-density.pdf

We have made the necessary updates to the manuscript to incorporate this information. Instead of providing a detailed algorithm description in our JOSS submission, we now refer the interested readers to the aforementioned reference for a comprehensive understanding of the algorithm.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we apologize for any oversight in not explicitly referencing the prior publication.

[kthyng]

@devarops ok thanks! I think we can move forward with review then.

[kthyng]

@graciellehigino since another of your submissions is just wrapping up — might you be able to take this submission on as editor?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @graciellehigino as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[kthyng]

just pinged @graciellehigino by email about editing

[graciellehigino]

Hi! Sorry for the huge delay. Yes, I can take this. [=

[graciellehigino]

@editorialbot assign @graciellehigino as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @graciellehigino is now the editor

[arfon]

@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:

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

remBoot: An R package for Random Encounter Modelling Submitting author: @arcaravaggi Handling editor: @karthik (Retired) Reviewers: @amoeba Similarity score: 0.7953

elapid: Species distribution modeling tools for Python Submitting author: @earth-chris Handling editor: @graciellehigino (Active) Reviewers: @chrisborges, @gabrieldansereau Similarity score: 0.7946

shinyssd v1.0: Species Sensitivity Distributions for Ecotoxicological Risk Assessment Submitting author: @flor14 Handling editor: @karthik (Retired) Reviewers: @kylehamilton Similarity score: 0.7943

The MarINvaders Toolkit Submitting author: @rlonka Handling editor: @osorensen (Active) Reviewers: @callumrollo, @ethanwhite Similarity score: 0.7896

Reel1.0 - A visualization tool for evaluating powder diffraction refinements Submitting author: @fgjorup Handling editor: @rkurchin (Active) Reviewers: @cmbiwer, @mikapfl Similarity score: 0.7870

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[arfon]

@graciellehigino – this list of previous similar papers ☝️ might be helpful here? Suggest starting with authors of earlier papers first as possible reviewers for this submission.

[devarops]

@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:

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

remBoot: An R package for Random Encounter Modelling Submitting author: @arcaravaggi Handling editor: @karthik (Retired) Reviewers: @amoeba Similarity score: 0.7953

elapid: Species distribution modeling tools for Python Submitting author: @earth-chris Handling editor: @graciellehigino (Active) Reviewers: @chrisborges, @gabrieldansereau Similarity score: 0.7946

shinyssd v1.0: Species Sensitivity Distributions for Ecotoxicological Risk Assessment Submitting author: @flor14 Handling editor: @karthik (Retired) Reviewers: @kylehamilton Similarity score: 0.7944

The MarINvaders Toolkit Submitting author: @rlonka Handling editor: @osorensen (Active) Reviewers: @callumrollo, @ethanwhite Similarity score: 0.7896

Reel1.0 - A visualization tool for evaluating powder diffraction refinements Submitting author: @fgjorup Handling editor: @rkurchin (Active) Reviewers: @cmbiwer, @mikapfl Similarity score: 0.7870

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[devarops]

@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:

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

portalcasting: Supporting automated forecasting of rodent populations Submitting author: @gmyenni Handling editor: @marcosvital (Active) Reviewers: @ViniciusBRodrigues, @FlukeAndFeather Similarity score: 0.7961

elapid: Species distribution modeling tools for Python Submitting author: @earth-chris Handling editor: @graciellehigino (Active) Reviewers: @chrisborges, @gabrieldansereau Similarity score: 0.7952

remBoot: An R package for Random Encounter Modelling Submitting author: @arcaravaggi Handling editor: @karthik (Retired) Reviewers: @amoeba Similarity score: 0.7948

The MarINvaders Toolkit Submitting author: @rlonka Handling editor: @osorensen (Active) Reviewers: @callumrollo, @ethanwhite Similarity score: 0.7922

BeeNestABM: An open-source agent-based model of spatiotemporal distribution of bumblebees in nests Submitting author: @ashleefv Handling editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman (Active) Reviewers: @sdelandtsheer Similarity score: 0.7898

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[devarops]

@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:

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

portalcasting: Supporting automated forecasting of rodent populations Submitting author: @gmyenni Handling editor: @marcosvital (Active) Reviewers: @ViniciusBRodrigues, @FlukeAndFeather Similarity score: 0.7999

remBoot: An R package for Random Encounter Modelling Submitting author: @arcaravaggi Handling editor: @karthik (Retired) Reviewers: @amoeba Similarity score: 0.7994

elapid: Species distribution modeling tools for Python Submitting author: @earth-chris Handling editor: @graciellehigino (Active) Reviewers: @chrisborges, @gabrieldansereau Similarity score: 0.7953

The MarINvaders Toolkit Submitting author: @rlonka Handling editor: @osorensen (Active) Reviewers: @callumrollo, @ethanwhite Similarity score: 0.7930

Reel1.0 - A visualization tool for evaluating powder diffraction refinements Submitting author: @fgjorup Handling editor: @rkurchin (Active) Reviewers: @cmbiwer, @mikapfl Similarity score: 0.7927

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[graciellehigino]

Hey @juniperlsimonis how are you? Would you be interested in reviewing this submission? [=

[graciellehigino]

Hey @gmyenni how are you? Would you be interested in reviewing this submission? [=

[devarops]

@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:

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

remBoot: An R package for Random Encounter Modelling Submitting author: @arcaravaggi Handling editor: @karthik (Retired) Reviewers: @amoeba Similarity score: 0.8009

shinyssd v1.0: Species Sensitivity Distributions for Ecotoxicological Risk Assessment Submitting author: @flor14 Handling editor: @karthik (Retired) Reviewers: @kylehamilton Similarity score: 0.8007

elapid: Species distribution modeling tools for Python Submitting author: @earth-chris Handling editor: @graciellehigino (Active) Reviewers: @chrisborges, @gabrieldansereau Similarity score: 0.7987

The MarINvaders Toolkit Submitting author: @rlonka Handling editor: @osorensen (Active) Reviewers: @callumrollo, @ethanwhite Similarity score: 0.7953

Reel1.0 - A visualization tool for evaluating powder diffraction refinements Submitting author: @fgjorup Handling editor: @rkurchin (Active) Reviewers: @cmbiwer, @mikapfl Similarity score: 0.7934

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[devarops]

@editorialbot generate pdf