[PRE REVIEW]: naturf: a package for generating urban parameters for numerical weather modeling

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@levisweetbreu<!--end-author-handle-- (Levi Sweet-Breu) Repository: https://github.com/IMMM-SFA/naturf.git Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.0.2 Editor: !--editor-->@cheginit<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @praneethd7, @caimeng2 Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e52937327089a970773a331a5cf643fd"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e52937327089a970773a331a5cf643fd/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e52937327089a970773a331a5cf643fd/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e52937327089a970773a331a5cf643fd)

Author instructions

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

@levisweetbreu 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 1.90  T=0.04 s (1023.1 files/s, 201452.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                           8            612            505           2383
YAML                             5             42             28            353
SVG                              4              4              4            298
reStructuredText                12            236            141            288
CSS                              2             53             11            244
TeX                              1              3              0            100
Markdown                         2             32              0             79
TOML                             2              6              2             61
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0           2113             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            39           1000           2812           3867
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   103  erexer
    72  levisweet
    54  Chris Vernon
    38  levisweetbreu
    37  em rexer
    15  lg6
    14  crvernon
    12  Levi Sweet-Breu
    12  Sweet, Levi
     7  Stefan Krawczyk
     5  Dumas, Melissa
     4  emily rexer
     2  kurte
     1  Allen, Melissa R
     1  Melissa Allen-Dumas
     1  Sweet L T

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 830

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[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

- 10.5281/zenodo.3946761 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Impacts of the morphology of new neighborhoods on ...
- 10.1175/2009bams2675.1 may be a valid DOI for title: National urban database and access portal tool
- No DOI given, and none found for title: An Introduction to the WUDAPT project
- 10.1175/bams-d-16-0236.1 may be a valid DOI for title: WUDAPT: An urban weather, climate, and environment...
- 10.21105/joss.03541 may be a valid DOI for title: GeoClimate: a Geospatial processing toolbox for en...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Hamilton: a modular open source declarative paradi...

INVALID DOIs

- None

[arfon]

@levisweetbreu - thanks for your submission to JOSS. We're currently managing a large backlog of submissions and the editor most appropriate for your area is already rather busy.

For now, we will need to waitlist this paper and process it as the queue reduces. Thanks for your patience!

[levisweetbreu]

@arfon that sounds great, thank you for the update!

[levisweetbreu]

Some potential reviewers who may be appropriate: caimeng2, jasondegraw, & praneethd7.

[erexer]

As a heads-up, I'll be out of the office and out of contact April 15–May 10 for leave. For issues where you need my help, feel free to tag me on GitHub, and I'll see it when I get back!

[kthyng]

Hi @levisweetbreu and thanks for your submission (which has just been moved to my track)! I am looking for some specific items to make sure your submission fits our requirements at a high level (not at the more detailed review level) before moving on to finding an editor or putting this on our waitlist if no relevant editors are available. I'll comment over time as I have a chance to go through them:

• [x] Substantial scholarly effort
• [x] Documentation
• [x] Tests of some sort
• [x] Installation instructions
• [x] Clear research application
• [x] Check paper
• [x] License

In the meantime, please take a look at the comments above ⬆️ from the editorialbot to address any DOI, license, or paper issues if you're able (there may not be any), or suggest reviewers. For reviewers, 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 (I see some were already suggested above, thanks!).

[levisweetbreu]

@kthyng Thank you for the update! I believe the DOI issues mentioned above have been fixed. As for reviewers, here are some who may be appropriate:

1. caimeng2
2. jasondegraw
3. praneethd7
4. yan-yuchen
5. lukasbeuster

[kthyng]

@martinfleis Could you edit this submission?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @martinfleis as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[martinfleis]

Hey @kthyng, I can't do that now. I will need to take a pause from editing for some time as noted in the other pre-review.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot assign @cheginit as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @cheginit is now the editor

[cheginit]

Hi @levisweetbreu, I will take over editing this submission now.

[cheginit]

Hi @jasondegraw and @praneethd7! 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.

[jasondegraw]

@cheginit I'm employed by the organization that several of the authors are associated with, so I'll have to pass on this one.

[praneethd7]

@cheginit I can review this submission. Looks interesting!

[cheginit]

@praneethd7 Thanks for your prompt response and agreeing to review the submission! Once I find another reviewer, I will create a new issue and ping you to formally start the review process.

[cheginit]

@editorialbot add @praneethd7 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@praneethd7 added to the reviewers list!

[cheginit]

@jasondegraw Thanks for disclosing your COI.

[cheginit]

Hi @caimeng2! 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.

[caimeng2]

Hi @cheginit, thanks for the invite, and yes, I can probably do it later this month.

[cheginit]

@caimeng2 Thanks for agreeing to review this submission.

I will create a new issue and ping you with instructions for formally starting the review.

[cheginit]

@editorialbot add @caimeng2 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@caimeng2 added to the reviewers list!

[cheginit]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6712.