[PRE REVIEW]: statemodify: a Python framework to facilitate accessible exploratory modeling for discovering drought vulnerabilities

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@rg727<!--end-author-handle-- (Rohini Gupta) Repository: https://github.com/IMMM-SFA/statemodify Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v0.1.4 Editor: !--editor-->@cheginit<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @barneydobson, @ekblad Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2eaeba28b1b6cd389bee36db7826af78"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2eaeba28b1b6cd389bee36db7826af78/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2eaeba28b1b6cd389bee36db7826af78/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2eaeba28b1b6cd389bee36db7826af78)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @rg727. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@rg727 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=0.09 s (589.9 files/s, 142194.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          25           1375           1735           2346
Jupyter Notebook                 6              0           4845            680
YAML                            10             90             55            650
reStructuredText                 6            270            125            239
TeX                              1             19              0            184
Markdown                         3             29              0             78
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            53           1795           6768           4212
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1467

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1023/B:CLIM.0000013684.13621.1f is OK
- 10.1029/2022WR033454 is OK
- 10.1029/2020EF001503 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ejrh.2015.02.014 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aay9187 is OK
- 10.1029/2021GL095085 is OK
- 10.1029/2020WR028079 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.082081699 is OK
- 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000626 is OK
- 10.1076/iaij.4.1.1.16462 is OK
- 10.1287/opre.41.3.435 is OK
- 10.1287/opre.41.3.435 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105052 is OK
- 10.1080/02508060508691893 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.4211/hs.d3efcf0c930646fd9ef4f17c56436d20 may be a valid DOI for title: The future hydrology of the Colorado River Basin

INVALID DOIs

- 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2004)130:6(480 is INVALID

[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:

Water Systems Integrated Modelling framework, WSIMOD: A Python package for integrated modelling of water quality and quantity across the water cycle Submitting author: @barneydobson Handling editor: @crvernon (Active) Reviewers: @cheginit, @jlarsen-usgs Similarity score: 0.8386

mosartwmpy: A Python implementation of the MOSART-WM coupled hydrologic routing and water management model Submitting author: @thurber Handling editor: @kthyng (Active) Reviewers: @JannisHoch, @cheginit Similarity score: 0.8259

pyDeltaRCM: a flexible numerical delta model Submitting author: @amoodie Handling editor: @kbarnhart (Retired) Reviewers: @zsylvester, @jhnienhuis, @salterg Similarity score: 0.8222

Integrated hydrologic model development and postprocessing for GSFLOW using pyGSFLOW Submitting author: @jlarsen-usgs Handling editor: @crvernon (Active) Reviewers: @thurber, @mdbartos, @mdbartos Similarity score: 0.8180

pySBeLT: A Python software package for stochastic sediment transport under rarefied conditions Submitting author: @szwiep Handling editor: @kbarnhart (Retired) Reviewers: @pfeiffea, @tdoane Similarity score: 0.8107

⚠️ 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.

[kthyng]

Hi @rg727 and thanks for your submission. We have a backlog of submissions right now which I will add yours to now. Thanks for your patience.

In the meantime, please check the DOIs listed above, and provide the github handles of 5 reviewers (without "@" so we don't prematurely ping them) from the reviewer database listed above or your own (non-conflicted) extended network.

[crvernon]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1023/B:CLIM.0000013684.13621.1f is OK
- 10.1029/2022WR033454 is OK
- 10.4211/hs.d3efcf0c930646fd9ef4f17c56436d20 is OK
- 10.1029/2020EF001503 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ejrh.2015.02.014 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aay9187 is OK
- 10.1029/2021GL095085 is OK
- 10.1029/2020WR028079 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.082081699 is OK
- 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000626 is OK
- 10.1076/iaij.4.1.1.16462 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-05252-2 is OK
- 10.1287/opre.41.3.435 is OK
- 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2004)130:6(480) is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105052 is OK
- 10.1080/02508060508691893 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[rg727]

@kthyng thanks so much! We fixed the DOIs and we are now just compiling a list of candidate reviewers.

[rg727]

@kthyng here is a list of reviewers:

Barney Dobson - barneydobson Liam Ekblad - ekblad Jared Smith - jds485 Billy Raseman- wraseman Nathan Bonham- nabocrb

[kthyng]

@editorialbot add @cheginit as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @cheginit is now the editor

[cheginit]

Hi @barneydobson, @ekblad, and @pfeiffea! Would you like to review this submission to the Journal for Open Source Software? Our reviews are checklist-driven and openly conducted on GitHub over a timeline of 4–6 weeks. Because the process is much more iterative and interactive than a traditional paper review, we would ask you to start within the next 2 weeks. Here are reviewer guidelines for reference: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html Thanks for your consideration.

[barneydobson]

@cheginit happy to!

[cheginit]

Thanks @barneydobson! Once the other reviewers agree, I will move the submission to the review queue so we can officially start the review process.

[cheginit]

@editorialbot add @barneydobson as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@barneydobson added to the reviewers list!

[ekblad]

Hi, this looks good, I will take a look at the checklist and repo in the next couple weeks.

On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 9:29 AM Taher Chegini @.***> wrote:

Hi @barneydobson https://github.com/barneydobson, @ekblad https://github.com/ekblad, and @pfeiffea https://github.com/pfeiffea! Would you like to review this submission to the Journal for Open Source Software? Our reviews are checklist-driven and openly conducted on GitHub over a timeline of 4–6 weeks. Because the process is much more iterative and interactive than a traditional paper review, we would ask you to start within the next 2 weeks. Here are reviewer guidelines for reference: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html Thanks for your consideration.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6223#issuecomment-1915227366, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKJYILG3NLBMLKQQPMT57RLYQ7MAZAVCNFSM6AAAAABBYOKTFGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSMJVGIZDOMZWGY . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[cheginit]

@editorialbot add @ekblad as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@ekblad added to the reviewers list!

[cheginit]

Thanks @ekblad! Once the last reviewer agrees, I will move the submission to the review queue so we can officially start the review process.

[pfeiffea]

Hi @cheginit - I am on maternity leave right now, and wouldn't be able to start the review until March when I get back to work (and have childcare!). I'm guessing you want the review completed before then, yes?

[cheginit]

Thanks for letting me know @pfeiffea and wishing you all the best on your maternity leave! Right, I prefer the review to be done by then.

[cheginit]

Hi @gutabeshu! Would you like to review this submission to the Journal for Open Source Software? Our reviews are checklist-driven and openly conducted on GitHub over a timeline of 4–6 weeks. Because the process is much more iterative and interactive than a traditional paper review, we would ask you to start within the next 2 weeks. Here are reviewer guidelines for reference: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html Thanks for your consideration.

[gutabeshu]

Hi @cheginit. Thank you for the invitation. Unfortunately, due to current commitments and time constraints, I am concerned that I would not be able to complete the review within the expected timeframe. Therefore, I must respectfully decline the review request this time. Please do consider me for future review opportunities.

[cheginit]

@gutabeshu, I understand. Thanks for letting me know.

[cheginit]

@editorialbot start review.

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6325.