Closed editorialbot closed 6 months ago
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
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.26 s (296.7 files/s, 215609.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 26 2601 3711 11193
reStructuredText 17 663 324 1476
Jupyter Notebook 9 0 34843 548
YAML 12 52 45 454
TeX 1 15 0 380
Markdown 2 40 0 91
make 2 21 16 65
TOML 2 10 22 56
DOS Batch 1 8 1 27
SVG 6 0 1 20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 78 3410 38963 14310
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 1637
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.5194/gmd-10-4619-2017 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.148 is OK
- 10.5194/egusphere-2023-2720 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.2209431119 is OK
- 10.1109/ICDMW.2009.64 is OK
- 10.1002/2014EO420002 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-15-9031-2022 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.2586088 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10038784 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.8339034 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10236521 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.8356796 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7348619 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- https://doi.org/10.1029/2022MS003156 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Five most similar historical JOSS papers:
flux-data-qaqc: A Python Package for Energy Balance Closure and Post-Processing of Eddy Flux Data
Submitting author: @JohnVolk
Handling editor: @pdebuyl (Active)
Reviewers: @ashwinvis, @dgketchum
Similarity score: 0.8143
atlite: A Lightweight Python Package for Calculating Renewable Power Potentials and Time Series
Submitting author: @fabianhofmann
Handling editor: @timtroendle (Active)
Reviewers: @kanderso-nrel, @crvernon
Similarity score: 0.8122
RESOURCECODE: A Python package for statistical analysis of sea-state hindcast data
Submitting author: @NRaillard
Handling editor: @marcosvital (Active)
Reviewers: @krober10nd, @platipodium, @malmans2
Similarity score: 0.8107
CLIMLAB: a Python toolkit for interactive, process-oriented climate modeling
Submitting author: @brian-rose
Handling editor: @lheagy (Retired)
Reviewers: @Chilipp, @dhhagan
Similarity score: 0.8103
climpred: Verification of weather and climate forecasts
Submitting author: @bradyrx
Handling editor: @dhhagan (Active)
Reviewers: @neerajdhanraj, @samjsilva91
Similarity score: 0.8060
⚠️ 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.
Hi @tomvothecoder and thanks for your submission! We have a backlog of submissions so I will add this to our waitlist. In the meantime, please suggest 5 reviewers from the database listed above or your own (non-conflicted) extended network. Their github handles are most useful to receive but please don't use "@" to reference them since it will prematurely ping them. Thanks for your patience.
Hi @kthyng and thank you for the update! I will get back to you soon with 5 possible reviewers.
In addition to those listed in the comment above, here are some more possible reviewers:
thank you!
@editorialbot assign me as editor
Assigned! @arfon is now the editor
@brian-rose @bradyrx @NRaillard @spencerahill @dcherian @mgrover1 – :wave: would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The submission under consideration is xCDAT: A Python package for simple climate data analysis on structured grids
The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. You can learn more about the process in these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html
Based on your experience, and authorship of past JOSS submissions, we think you might be able to provide a great review of this submission. Please let me know if you think you can help us out!
Many thanks Arfon
Hi @arfon, yes I would be happy to review this!
@arfon I would be happy to review this!
Thank you @brian-rose and @mgrover1 for your eagerness in reviewing this xCDAT paper!
Amazing, thanks @brian-rose and @mgrover1 !
@editorialbot add @brian-rose as reviewer
@brian-rose added to the reviewers list!
@editorialbot add @mgrover1 as reviewer
@mgrover1 added to the reviewers list!
@editorialbot start review
OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6426.
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@tomvothecoder<!--end-author-handle-- (Tom Vo) Repository: https://github.com/xCDAT/xcdat Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): docs/420-joss-paper Version: v0.6.1 Editor: !--editor-->@arfon<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @brian-rose, @mgrover1 Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng
Status
Status badge code:
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @tomvothecoder. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
@tomvothecoder 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: