[PRE REVIEW]: agweather-qaqc: An Interactive Python Package for Quality Assurance and Quality Control of Daily Agricultural Weather Data and Calculation of Reference Evapotranspiration

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @cwdunkerly (Christian Dunkerly) Repository: https://github.com/WSWUP/agweather-qaqc Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: 1.0.2 Editor: !--editor-->@cheginit<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @dostuffthatmatters, @dlebauer Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4a814cae00846c427ed0313749516313"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4a814cae00846c427ed0313749516313/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4a814cae00846c427ed0313749516313/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4a814cae00846c427ed0313749516313)

Author instructions

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

@cwdunkerly 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 (600.9 files/s, 178657.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML                            14            752             42           5074
SVG                              1              0              0           2671
Python                           9            657           1035           2167
JavaScript                      12            131            221            880
CSS                              4            190             35            780
reStructuredText                 6            129             59            266
INI                              2             96              0            212
TeX                              1             21              0            177
Markdown                         2             41              0             86
YAML                             2              1              4             32
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            53           2018           1396          12345
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 2437

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1061/9780784408056 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1002/joc.3413 may be a valid DOI for title: Development of gridded surface meteorological data for ecological applications and modelling
- 10.1061/(asce)0733-9437(1996)122:2(97) may be a valid DOI for title: Assessing integrity of weather data for reference evapotranspiration estimation
- 10.2480/agrmet.64.4.5 may be a valid DOI for title: Quality assessment of weather data and micrometeological flux-impacts on evapotranspiration calculation
- 10.1016/j.agwat.2010.12.015 may be a valid DOI for title: Evapotranspiration information reporting: I. Factors governing measurement accuracy
- 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106531 may be a valid DOI for title: Conditioning point and gridded weather data under aridity conditions for calculation of reference evapotranspiration
- 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106376 may be a valid DOI for title: An evaluation of gridded weather data sets for the purpose of estimating reference evapotranspiration in the United States
- 10.1038/srep38495 may be a valid DOI for title: The world’s road to water scarcity: shortage and stress in the 20th century and pathways towards sustainability
- 10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0001595 may be a valid DOI for title: Validation and Bias Correction of Forecast Reference Evapotranspiration for Agricultural Applications in Nevada
- 10.1016/s0168-1923(98)00126-9 may be a valid DOI for title: An improved algorithm for estimating incident daily solar radiation from measurements of temperature, humidity, and precipitation

INVALID DOIs

- None

[kthyng]

Hi @cwdunkerly 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. Also please address the editorial bot comments above. Thanks for your patience.

[cwdunkerly]

Thank you! I am leaving for field work today for the next few days, I will get this taken care of as soon as I get back.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot assign @cheginit as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @cheginit is now the editor

[kthyng]

@cwdunkerly Sounds good! @cheginit will work with you on your submission when you're back to get it under review. Thanks.

[cheginit]

@cwdunkerly I will be handling your submission. Please provide me with 5 potential reviewers. As mentioned, please do not use "@" to reference them to avoid premature pinging.

[cwdunkerly]

@cheginit thank you for the reminder. My field work took longer than anticipated, but I will get the names of 5 potential reviewers this week.

[cheginit]

@cwdunkerly Sure, thanks.

[cwdunkerly]

Here are the five I identified:

nmstreethran tamnva kmarkert dostuffthatmatters dkedar7

Apologies again for the delay.

[cheginit]

Thanks @cwdunkerly!

Hi @dlebauer, @kmarkert, and @dostuffthatmatters! 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.

[dlebauer]

Yes, I'm available to review

[dostuffthatmatters]

Hi @cheginit,

I would like to review it as well.

Best, Moritz Makowski

[cheginit]

@dostuffthatmatters, and @dlebauer, thanks for your prompt responses! Once I hear from the other reviewer, I will move this to the review queue so you can start the review.

[cheginit]

@editorialbot add @dostuffthatmatters as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@dostuffthatmatters added to the reviewers list!

[cheginit]

@editorialbot add @dlebauer as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@dlebauer added to the reviewers list!

[cheginit]

Since we already have two reviewers, I will go ahead with starting the review. @KMarkert, please let me know if you would like to review this submission and I will add you as a reviewer.

[cheginit]

@editorialbot start review.

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6368.