[PRE REVIEW]: PolarToolkit: Python Tools for Convenient, Reproducible, and Open Polar Science

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@mdtanker<!--end-author-handle-- (Matt Tankersley) Repository: https://github.com/mdtanker/polartoolkit Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): JOSS_paper Version: v0.2.1 Editor: !--editor-->@hugoledoux<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @PennyHow, @JessicaS11 Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b3964f290fcd03c7706ef1973bcdf702"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b3964f290fcd03c7706ef1973bcdf702/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b3964f290fcd03c7706ef1973bcdf702/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b3964f290fcd03c7706ef1973bcdf702)

Author instructions

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

@mdtanker 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=0.52 s (135.8 files/s, 154853.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          14           1568           3139           6934
Markdown                        16            399              0           1255
Jupyter Notebook                17              0          64202            977
TeX                              2             63              0            892
YAML                            12             64             90            795
TOML                             1             21              4            248
SVG                              1              1              1            165
make                             1             23              6             51
JSON                             1              0              0             32
reStructuredText                 6              3             27             12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            71           2142          67469          11361
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1532

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.rse.2008.07.006 is OK
- 10.1594/PANGAEA.951482 is OK
- 10.1594/PANGAEA.819147 is OK
- 10.5194/tc-7-375-2013 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2016.08.003 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.148 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01943 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5607255 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00957 is OK
- 10.1029/2019GC008515 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[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:

EarthPy: A Python package that makes it easier to explore and plot raster and vector data using open source Python tools. Submitting author: @lwasser Handling editor: @arfon (Active) Reviewers: @arfon Similarity score: 0.8375

PyAstroPol: A Python package for the instrumental polarization analysis of the astronomical optics. Submitting author: @hemanthpruthvi Handling editor: @pibion (Retired) Reviewers: @aquilesC, @caldarolamartin, @mwcraig Similarity score: 0.8326

PolSAR tools: A QGIS plugin for generating SAR descriptors Submitting author: @Narayana-Rao Handling editor: @hugoledoux (Active) Reviewers: @liberostelios, @HenrikJanPersson Similarity score: 0.8260

splot - visual analytics for spatial statistics Submitting author: @slumnitz Handling editor: @leouieda (Retired) Reviewers: @ResidentMario, @martinfleis Similarity score: 0.8234

IBCAO_py: A matplotlib library for using the International Bathymetric Chart of the Arctic Ocean with cartopy and matplotlib Submitting author: @gauteh Handling editor: @arfon (Active) Reviewers: @dvalters Similarity score: 0.8190

⚠️ 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 @mdtanker 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.

However first can you comment on your readme note "This package is in early stages of development"? Your package looks relatively established, but this note seems to indicate it might be better to wait to publish in JOSS?

[mdtanker]

Hi @kthyng, thanks for the instructions. I will find 5 reviewers and post them here.

I've had that warning there since I started the project, but it is probably time to remove it, or at least edit it. Since I know there are users of PolarToolkit who are new to programming, I am just trying to warn them about the hazard of blindly updating to new major version without first checking the change log for breaking changes.

I've added an issue to fix this: https://github.com/mdtanker/polartoolkit/issues/168

[mdtanker]

Suggested reviewers:

• Ken Mankoff: mankoff
  • extensive research background based in Antarctica
• Wei Ji Leong: weiji14
  • core developer at PyGMT (a core dependency of PolarToolkit) and Antarctic researcher
  • he is mentioned in the acknowledgements, if that affects anything
• Jessica Scheick: JessicaS11
  • cryosphere remote sensing and open-source software developer
• Chad Greene: chadagreene
  • not Python oriented, but created Antarctic-Mapping-Tools, which is a very similar package to PolarToolkit, but written in MatLab
• Penny How: PennyHow
  • open-source software developer focused on Greenland research

[mdtanker]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1532

I think it is closer to 800 words. There are lots of commented-out sections in the .md file that I think are being mistakingly included in that 1532.

[kthyng]

@hugoledoux As you have wrapped up another submission, might you edit this one?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @hugoledoux as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[hugoledoux]

@hugoledoux As you have wrapped up another submission, might you edit this one?

you don't give me much of a break, do you? 😝

[hugoledoux]

@editorialbot assign @hugoledoux as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @hugoledoux is now the editor

[hugoledoux]

@mdtanker thanks for the suggestions of reviewers.

re: the "early development" and your "Ready for daily use but still changing" warning, I think it's known (is it?) that before v1.0 changes can be not backwards compatible.

I'll start working on this week.

[kthyng]

@hugoledoux 😬 😅 I appreciate your on-going efforts!!

[mdtanker]

@hugoledoux no worries. Yes I think that is the case, let me know if your happy with the updated wording in the readme, or if you'd like me to remove that warning all together.

[hugoledoux]

@editorialbot add @PennyHow as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@PennyHow added to the reviewers list!

[hugoledoux]

@hugoledoux no worries. Yes I think that is the case, let me know if your happy with the updated wording in the readme, or if you'd like me to remove that warning all together.

@mdtanker for now it should be fine, no worries

[hugoledoux]

@editorialbot add @JessicaS11 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@JessicaS11 added to the reviewers list!

[hugoledoux]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6502.