[PRE REVIEW]: OceanBioME.jl: A flexible environment for modelling the coupled interactions between ocean biogeochemistry and physics

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@jagoosw<!--end-author-handle-- (Jago Strong-Wright) Repository: https://github.com/OceanBioME/OceanBioME.jl Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-paper Version: v0.2.0 Editor: !--editor-->@kthyng<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @francispoulin, @iuryt Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f991f4a8f0fc5ab1aba3dd1ac51f20bd"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f991f4a8f0fc5ab1aba3dd1ac51f20bd/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f991f4a8f0fc5ab1aba3dd1ac51f20bd/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f991f4a8f0fc5ab1aba3dd1ac51f20bd)

Author instructions

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

@jagoosw 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=0.05 s (1881.5 files/s, 183494.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                           52           1236            374           4314
TOML                             3            198              1            908
Markdown                        24            215              0            548
TeX                              2             23              0            404
YAML                             5             10              6            150
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            86           1682            381           6324
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1371

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.21105/joss.02018 is OK
- 10.1029/2004JC002588 is OK
- 10.1029/92JC00188 is OK
- 10.1016/S0012-8252(00)00004-0 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1471700 is OK
- 10.3389/fmars.2022.752951 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03349 is OK
- 10.1016/j.pocean.2015.07.004 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04869 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-8-2465-2015 is OK
- 10.1007/s10811-011-9695-y is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1137/141000671 may be a valid DOI for title: Julia: A Fresh Approach to Numerical Computing

INVALID DOIs

- None

[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 @jagoosw and thanks for your submission. I'm going to add it to our waitlist for now as we wait for an available editor. Thanks for your patience. In the meantime, please add a "Statement of Need" and check out that possibly missing DOI noted above.

[johnryantaylor]

Hi @kthyng, thanks for your help with the review process. For reviewers I would suggest Tomas Chor (tomaschor@gmail.com) and Francis Poulin (fpoulin@uwaterloo.ca).

[kthyng]

HI @johnryantaylor! Could you and co-authors suggest more options? 5+ is useful since people are so busy. https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/reviewers

[johnryantaylor]

Hi @kthyng, are you still looking for reviewers for this? If so, I would suggest the following: Iury Simoes-Sousa (https://iuryt.github.io/), Beniot Pasquier (https://github.com/briochemc) and Dan Kelley (https://github.com/dankelley)

[kthyng]

Hi @jagoosw and @johnryantaylor! I'll be the editor for your submission.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @kthyng is now the editor

[kthyng]

@tomchor @francispoulin @iuryt I'm looking for 2-3 reviewers for this submission to JOSS. Might you be interested in being a reviewer? As you probably know, reviews are conducted on github and are therefore open. We would hope to have the review wrapping up in 4-6 weeks total, meaning that the reviews would need to be started in the next 1-2 weeks since the process tends to be iterative between the reviewers and authors. Thank you for your consideration.

[iuryt]

I am happy to review this paper. The only thing though is that my Ph.D. defense will occur in August 1st. Thus, I would prefer to start the review after that, but as you mentioned that starting in the next 2 weeks is not a problem, you can count on me. Does that work? As I am very interested in the subject, I can try starting before that, if needed.

[francispoulin]

@tomchor @francispoulin @iuryt I'm looking for 2-3 reviewers for this submission to JOSS. Might you be interested in being a reviewer? As you probably know, reviews are conducted on github and are therefore open. We would hope to have the review wrapping up in 4-6 weeks total, meaning that the reviews would need to be started in the next 1-2 weeks since the process tends to be iterative between the reviewers and authors. Thank you for your consideration.

Hello, I would be happy to review this paper. Just let me know how you would like me to proceed.

[kthyng]

@iuryt Good luck on your upcoming defense! Do you think it would be realistic for you to start your review soon after your defense or will you have other tasks to work on? I do not think you should do a review before your defense! :)

[iuryt]

@iuryt Good luck on your upcoming defense! Do you think it would be realistic for you to start your review soon after your defense or will you have other tasks to work on? I do not think you should do a review before your defense! :)

I will probably have the day after off. So I can start by August 3rd.

[kthyng]

@iuryt Ok if you're up for it, sounds good! I will start the review issue with you and @francispoulin as reviewers and you can start after your defense.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot add @francispoulin as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@francispoulin added to the reviewers list!

[kthyng]

@editorialbot add @iuryt as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@iuryt added to the reviewers list!

[kthyng]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5669.