Closed editorialbot closed 4 months 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
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.11 s (788.2 files/s, 242194.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JavaScript 11 2613 2665 10087
HTML 35 1447 114 5287
R 11 264 185 802
Rmd 6 295 414 595
CSS 8 106 82 463
Markdown 4 96 0 312
TeX 1 0 0 207
YAML 6 31 4 165
XML 1 0 0 105
Sass 1 4 0 71
SVG 1 0 1 11
JSON 1 0 0 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 86 4856 3465 18106
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 1422
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.5281/zenodo.7868764 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.2558565 is OK
- 10.5194/hess-26-6121-2022 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.3133/pp252 may be a valid DOI for title: The hydraulic geometry of stream channels and some physiographic implications
- 10.1002/aaai.12035 may be a valid DOI for title: Knowledge graphs to support real-time flood impact evaluation
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.07.020 may be a valid DOI for title: Field verification of analytical at-a-station hydraulic-geometry relations
- 10.1111/1752-1688.12661 may be a valid DOI for title: River channel geometry and rating curve estimation using height above the nearest drainage
- Errored finding suggestions for "National Flood Interoperability Experiment", please try later
- 10.20944/preprints202212.0390.v1 may be a valid DOI for title: Determining Feature Based Hydraulic Geometry and Rating Curves using a Physically Based, Computationally Efficient Framework
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104927 may be a valid DOI for title: Mainstems: A logical data model implementing mainstem and drainage basin feature types based on WaterML2 Part 3: HY Features concepts
- 10.22541/essoar.167415214.45806648/v1 may be a valid DOI for title: Comprehensive analysis of the NOAA National Water Model: A call for heterogeneous formulations and diagnostic model selection
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.01.038 may be a valid DOI for title: Statistical filtering of river survey and streamflow data for improving At-A-Station hydraulic geometry relations
- 10.1111/jawr.12282 may be a valid DOI for title: Development and evaluation of bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for the physiographic regions of the United States
- 10.1111/1752-1688.12460 may be a valid DOI for title: Development and comparison of multiple regression models to predict bankfull channel dimensions for use in hydrologic models
INVALID DOIs
- None
:wave: @mikejohnson51 , @mabesa, and @mengqi-z - This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.
Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above.
Both reviewers have checklists at the top of this thread (in that first comment) with the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.
The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6145 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.
We aim for the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks but please make a start well ahead of this as JOSS reviews are by their nature iterative and any early feedback you may be able to provide to the author will be very helpful in meeting this schedule.
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
👋 @mikejohnson51 , @mabesa, and @mengqi-z
Just checking up on the status of this review to see how things are going. Post a short update here if you wouldn't mind.
Thanks!
Sorry for the delay and thanks for the kick. I got sick and then pushed the review off...
@mikejohnson51 I went through the readme and have summarised my comments in an issue: https://github.com/mikejohnson51/AHGestimation/issues/9
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@mikejohnson51 Many thanks for your edits, great work! I reviewed them in https://github.com/mikejohnson51/AHGestimation/issues/9 and added a few comments, including from a review of the vignettes.
I ran devtools::test() and got 15 fails. I'm afraid you'll need to update the test scripts. Added this as separate issue here: https://github.com/mikejohnson51/AHGestimation/issues/11
Last thing I'm missing from my checklist above are community guidelines. They can be in a section at the bottom of the readme.
:wave: @mikejohnson51 , @mabesa, and @mengqi-z
I will be unavailable from Jan. 17-29. Please keep up the great work while I am out and I will be happy to address any questions you have when I come back!
Thanks!
👋 @mikejohnson51 , @mabesa, and @mengqi-z
I'm back now. Can you all post short updates to how things are going here in this thread?
Thanks!
Hi @crvernon, sorry for the delay. I am currently in the process of reviewing this package. I plan to complete my review by the end of this week. Thank you!
No problem at all @mengqi-z ! Thank you!
Hi @crvernon, I encountered an error when running one of the vignettes (https://github.com/mikejohnson51/AHGestimation/issues/9). But I can very quickly wrap the review up as soon as this is resolved.
Thanks @mabesa !
Hi @crvernon sorry for not responding here. I have received excellent feedback from both @mabesa and @mengqi-z and have responded to the corresponding issues in the primary repo. Thanks!
Thanks @mikejohnson51 !
:wave: @mabesa and @mengqi-z - will you give me a short update here on the status of the review? Thanks!
Hi @crvernon, I was a bit busy last week. I will continue my review this week, as @mikejohnson51 has already addressed my first-round comments. Thanks!
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Hi @crvernon, I'm going through the paper one last time and encountered an issue. Apart from that all checkboxes are ticked from my side.
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@crvernon I'm through. Please let me know if there are any further steps I need to do.
Thank you for all your effort @mabesa. I really appreciate it
@crvernon I have completed my review, and I am pleased to confirm that all checks have passed. I recommend accepting the paper.
Great @mengqi-z and @mabesa thank you! I will make my pass on this over the next few days and provide next steps.
Thanks @crvernon! Please let me know what you need from our team.
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.3133/pp252 is OK
- 10.1002/aaai.12035 is OK
- 10.1002/aaai.12035 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7868764 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.2558565 is OK
- 10.1111/1752-1688.12661 is OK
- 10.1111/1752-1688.12474 is OK
- 10.20944/preprints202212.0390.v1 is OK
- 10.5194/hess-26-6121-2022 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104927 is OK
- 10.22541/essoar.167415214.45806648/v1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.01.038 is OK
- 10.1111/jawr.12282 is OK
- 10.1111/1752-1688.12460 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1002/env.2711 may be a valid DOI for title: Generalization of the power-law rating curve using hydrodynamic theory and Bayesian hierarchical modeling
INVALID DOIs
- None
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.3133/pp252 is OK
- 10.1002/aaai.12035 is OK
- 10.1002/aaai.12035 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7868764 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.2558565 is OK
- 10.1111/1752-1688.12661 is OK
- 10.1111/1752-1688.12474 is OK
- 10.20944/preprints202212.0390.v1 is OK
- 10.5194/hess-26-6121-2022 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104927 is OK
- 10.22541/essoar.167415214.45806648/v1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.01.038 is OK
- 10.1111/jawr.12282 is OK
- 10.1111/1752-1688.12460 is OK
- 10.1002/env.2711 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.3133/pp252 is OK
- 10.1002/aaai.12035 is OK
- 10.1002/aaai.12035 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7868764 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.2558565 is OK
- 10.1111/1752-1688.12661 is OK
- 10.1111/1752-1688.12474 is OK
- 10.20944/preprints202212.0390.v1 is OK
- 10.5194/hess-26-6121-2022 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104927 is OK
- 10.22541/essoar.167415214.45806648/v1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.01.038 is OK
- 10.1111/jawr.12282 is OK
- 10.1111/1752-1688.12460 is OK
- 10.1002/env.2711 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Comp...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: National Hydrologic Geospatial Fabric Reference an...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: mco: Multiple Criteria Optimization Algorithms and...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: An integrated evaluation of the national water mod...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Inundation Mapping
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Development of regional curves for hydrologic land...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The WRF-Hydro® modeling system technical descripti...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Height Above Nearest Drainage (HAND) and Hydraulic...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Generating a reference flow network with improved ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Generating a reference flow network with improved ...
INVALID DOIs
- None
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Hi @crvernon Im not sure if you are waiting on us for anything with this. If so happy to do so! Thanks.
Hi @crvernon. Is there anything you need from us here? Thanks!
@editorialbot generate pdf
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@mikejohnson51<!--end-author-handle-- (J. Micahel Johnson) Repository: https://github.com/mikejohnson51/AHGestimation/ Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: 0.2.0 Editor: !--editor-->@crvernon<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @mabesa, @mengqi-z Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10969037
Status
Status badge code:
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
@mabesa & @mengqi-z, 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:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @crvernon 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 @mabesa
📝 Checklist for @mengqi-z