[PRE REVIEW]: CoastSeg: an accessible and extendable hub for satellite-derived-shoreline (SDS) detection and mapping

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@2320sharon<!--end-author-handle-- (Sharon Fitzpatrick) Repository: https://github.com/SatelliteShorelines/CoastSeg Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main Version: v1.2.0 Editor: !--editor-->@cheginit<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @FlorisCalkoen, @fmemuir Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3bbccce8fec0dbf1ca0a47248cb7c503"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3bbccce8fec0dbf1ca0a47248cb7c503/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3bbccce8fec0dbf1ca0a47248cb7c503/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3bbccce8fec0dbf1ca0a47248cb7c503)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @2320sharon. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@2320sharon 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=1.02 s (138.5 files/s, 509261.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JSON                            42              4              0         391847
Python                          63           4708           8458          19785
Markdown                        16            284              0            695
TeX                              1             36              0            254
YAML                            10              8             26            225
Jupyter Notebook                 5              0          91630            217
TOML                             1              4              2             49
CSV                              3              0              0             38
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           141           5044         100116         413110
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   983  Sharon Fitzpatrick
   387  2320sharon
    15  Daniel Buscombe
     6  dbuscombe-usgs

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 3073

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU General Public License v3.0 (Check here for OSI approval)

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.8187949 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7786276 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.104528 may be a valid DOI for title: CoastSat: A Google Earth Engine-enabled Python too...
- 10.1016/j.geomorph.2023.108850 may be a valid DOI for title: 50 Years of Beach–Foredune Change on the Southeast...
- 10.1038/s43247-023-01001-2 may be a valid DOI for title: Benchmarking satellite-derived shoreline mapping a...
- 10.1016/j.coastaleng.2021.103919 may be a valid DOI for title: Satellite optical imagery in Coastal Engineering
- 10.31223/x5gx02 may be a valid DOI for title: Pacific shoreline erosion and accretion patterns c...
- 10.1016/j.geomorph.2021.107707 may be a valid DOI for title: Satellite-derived shoreline detection at a high-en...
- 10.1029/2023jf007135 may be a valid DOI for title: A Large Sediment Accretion Wave Along a Northern C...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The future of coastal monitoring through satellite...
- 10.22541/essoar.167839941.16313003/v1 may be a valid DOI for title: A model integrating satellite-derived shoreline ob...
- 10.1016/j.geomorph.2023.108972 may be a valid DOI for title: Secular shoreline response to large-scale estuarin...
- 10.1016/j.geomorph.2022.108360 may be a valid DOI for title: Primary drivers of multidecadal spatial and tempor...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: pyTMD: Python based tidal prediction software
- 10.5194/os-17-615-2021 may be a valid DOI for title: FES2014 global ocean tide atlas: Design and perfor...
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2022.105512 may be a valid DOI for title: A Python toolkit to monitor sandy shoreline change...
- 10.3390/rs9070676 may be a valid DOI for title: AROSICS: An automated and robust open-source image...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Planet Application Program Interface: In Space for...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Coastsat-package
- No DOI given, and none found for title: DEA Notebooks contributors 2021: Digital Earth Aus...
- 10.1016/j.margeo.2023.107082 may be a valid DOI for title: Satellite-based shoreline detection along high-ene...
- 10.21105/joss.03414 may be a valid DOI for title: Leafmap: A Python package for interactive mapping ...
- 10.31223/x5hs81 may be a valid DOI for title: A reproducible and reusable pipeline for segmentat...
- 10.1016/j.rse.2021.112734 may be a valid DOI for title: Mapping Australia’s Dynamic Coastline at Mean Sea ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PyTorch Model Zoo
- No DOI given, and none found for title: NVIDIA Model Zoo
- No DOI given, and none found for title: CoastSat v2.4
- 10.1016/j.margeo.2014.11.002 may be a valid DOI for title: Evaluating shoreline identification using optical ...
- 10.1016/j.margeo.2015.12.015 may be a valid DOI for title: Evaluation of annual mean shoreline position deduc...

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:

[kthyng]

Hi @2320sharon and thanks for your submission! 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

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, or suggest reviewers.

[kthyng]

Please note for any future reviewer selection that they probably shouldn't be mac users

[kthyng]

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.

[2320sharon]

Hi @kthyng Thank you for performing the initial review of the paper and for informing me about the backlog. I'll suggest 5 potential reviewers a comment. Again thank you for your help!

[2320sharon]

Here is a list of 5 potential reviewers:

1. Tomas Beuzen (TomasBeuzen) : https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/reviewers/962
2. Patrick Gray (patrickcgray) : https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/reviewers/1600
3. Kelly Kochanski (kellykochanski) : https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/reviewers/659
4. Freya Muir (fmemuir)
5. Floris Calkoen (FlorisCalkoen)

[2320sharon]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @2320sharon, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Run checks and provide information on the repository and the paper file
@editorialbot check repository

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

[2320sharon]

@editorialbot list editors

[editorialbot]

List of JOSS editors

@AJQuinn
@AdamRJensen
@AnjaliSandip
@AoifeHughes
@Bisaloo
@Fei-Tao
@HaoZeke
@JBorrow
@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
@Nikoleta-v3
@RMeli
@adamltyson
@adi3
@adonath
@ajstewartlang
@arfon
@atrisovic
@bmcfee
@boisgera
@britta-wstnr
@cMadan
@cheginit
@crsl4
@crvernon
@csoneson
@danasolav
@danielskatz
@dfm
@diazrenata
@diehlpk
@drvinceknight
@elbeejay
@eloisabentivegna
@emdupre
@fabian-s
@faroit
@fboehm
@fraukewiese
@galessiorob
@gkthiruvathukal
@graciellehigino
@hugoledoux
@ivastar
@jarvist
@jbytecode
@jedbrown
@jgostick
@jmschrei
@jromanowska
@karegapauline
@kellyrowland
@kthyng
@kyleniemeyer
@likeajumprope
@logological
@lpantano
@lrnv
@lucydot
@luizirber
@mahfuz05062
@majensen
@marcosvital
@martinfleis
@matthewfeickert
@mbarzegary
@mbobra
@mikemahoney218
@mooniean
@mstimberg
@observingClouds
@olexandr-konovalov
@oliviaguest
@osorensen
@pdebuyl
@phibeck
@philipcardiff
@plaplant
@ppxasjsm
@prashjha
@richardjgowers
@rkurchin
@rwegener2
@samhforbes
@sappelhoff
@sbenthall
@skanwal
@sneakers-the-rat
@spholmes
@srmnitc
@teonbrooks
@vissarion
@warrickball
@xuanxu
@ymzayek
@zhubonan

[kthyng]

@2320sharon Just to be clear — I'll recruit the editor to handle your submission. Unfortunately everyone with expertise in a relevant area is full to capacity right now which is why you're on the waitlist. But, I'll keep checking.

[2320sharon]

Hi @kthyng thanks for the update on the review process. I was beginning to think I did something wrong with the submission.

Quick question, the software in the paper, CoastSeg, has gotten a few minor patches since we submitted to the paper can the reviewers use the newer versions or do they have to use the version that was submitted?

[kthyng]

They should use the newest version for sure. They would install it however you say to in your docs to make sure they work so just make sure that is consistent with what you want them to do. I can update the version list in this pre-review issue too if you want, but ultimately what matters is what is listed when the submission is published.

[2320sharon]

I'm glad reviewers can use the latest version. Thanks for offering to update the version in the pre-review issue, but until we get reviewers for the paper we can leave the version as it is.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot assign @cheginit as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @cheginit is now the editor

[kthyng]

@2320sharon Ok @cheginit will be taking over as your editor now!

[2320sharon]

Thank you for your help!

[cheginit]

Hi @TomasBeuzen and @patrickcgray! 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.

[patrickcgray]

Hi @cheginit I would love to help but I will be traveling for the next few weeks and am at my quota for reviews at the moment. Please keep me in mind in the future!

[cheginit]

@patrickcgray Thanks for reviewing for us and your quick response!

[cheginit]

Hi @fmemuir! 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.

[TomasBeuzen]

Hi @cheginit - I have reviewed before so am familiar with how things work 😄 But I'm going on a month leave overseas tomorrow so am unavailable this time around. Thank you for asking though! Best of luck with the review.

[cheginit]

@TomasBeuzen Thanks for reviewing for us and letting me know, have fun overseas!

[cheginit]

Hi @FlorisCalkoen! 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.

[FlorisCalkoen]

Hi @cheginit, many thanks for asking and I'll be glad to review this work!

[cheginit]

@FlorisCalkoen Thanks for your prompt response and agreeing to be a reviewer.

Once I find another reviewer, I will create a new issue and ping you, so you can formally start the review.

[cheginit]

@editorialbot add @FlorisCalkoen as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@FlorisCalkoen added to the reviewers list!

[fmemuir]

Hi @fmemuir! 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.

Hi @cheginit, I'd be happy to review this submission! Just for your info, this will be my first JOSS review, but I will endeavour to read through and adhere to the reviewer guidelines.

[cheginit]

@fmemuir Great! Thanks for agreeing to review this submission. The information in the guideline is a good starting point. Please don't hesitate to ask any question about the process.

Now that I have two reviewers, I will open a new issue to formally begin the process. I will ping you and provide additional instructions on the review process.

[cheginit]

@editorialbot add @fmemuir as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@fmemuir 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/6683.