[PRE REVIEW]: SVInsight: A Python Package for Calculating Social Vulnerability Indices

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@mdp0023<!--end-author-handle-- (Matthew Preisser) Repository: https://github.com/mdp0023/SVInsight Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main Version: v1.1.0 Editor: !--editor-->@sappelhoff<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @dataspider, @bkrayfield Managing EiC: Olivia Guest

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0d7e1f5118367da6e36943ac68928ba5"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0d7e1f5118367da6e36943ac68928ba5/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0d7e1f5118367da6e36943ac68928ba5/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0d7e1f5118367da6e36943ac68928ba5)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @mdp0023. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@mdp0023 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]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.2202/1547-7355.1732 is OK
- 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.09.006 is OK
- 10.1111/1540-6237.8402002 is OK
- 10.2202/1547-7355.1792 is OK
- 10.2307/2137795 is OK
- 10.1111/risa.12677 is OK
- 10.3390/su12156006 is OK
- 10.1080/00045608.2012.700616 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.06.011 is OK
- 10.5194/hess-26-3941-2022 is OK
- 10.3389/frwa.2023.1278205 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102613 is OK
- 10.1080/24694452.2018.1535887 is OK
- 10.1007/s11069-019-03820-z is OK
- 10.1007/s11069-020-04470-2 is OK
- 10.13140/RG.2.2.35146.80324 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.22 s (649.5 files/s, 350657.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSV                             77              0              0          64839
HTML                            16            590             13           5220
CSS                              8            252             75           1512
Python                           7            417            847           1103
JavaScript                       7            131            197            817
YAML                             6             10              8            352
reStructuredText                13            312            136            321
TeX                              1             16              0            205
Markdown                         3             48              0             93
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
TOML                             1              3              1             22
SVG                              2              0              0             18
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            117             17
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           144           1791           1402          74554
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   154  mdp0023
     7  Matthew Preisser
     1  Paola Passalacqua

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1231

✅ 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:

[crvernon]

@editorialbot query scope

:wave: @mdp0023 - thanks so much for your submission to JOSS! I am going to get our larger editorial board to review whether or not this one meets our substantial scholarly effort requirement since it has a shorter codebase history (first commit on Apr 10). We will get back to you with the outcome of the scope query ASAP. Thanks!

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[mdp0023]

Thank you for the query scope. For reference, the commit history (first commit date and number of commits) won’t be reflective of the packages development history as it was previously only stored locally and not in a public GitHub repository. Prior to the creation of a GitHub repo for this code base, it was used in academic publications going back to 2021 including multiple in progress manuscripts.

[crvernon]

Thanks for the extra info @mdp0023! In that case, I am going to pull it from scope query. The editor that is best suited to take on this submission is currently at full capacity, so I am going to set this to waitlist for now and get you an editor assigned ASAP.

[crvernon]

@editorialbot invite @adamltyson as editor

:wave: @adamltyson do you mind taking this one on as editor?

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[adamltyson]

Hi @crvernon, I'll pass if that's ok. I'm just about to go away, and this is very far outside my expertise.

[crvernon]

Thanks for the quick reply @adamltyson.

[arfon]

@editorialbot generate pdf

☝ to generate the most similar paper recommendation list which has been broken for some time.

[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:

splot - visual analytics for spatial statistics Submitting author: @slumnitz Handling editor: @leouieda (Retired) Reviewers: @ResidentMario, @martinfleis Similarity score: 0.8039

elapid: Species distribution modeling tools for Python Submitting author: @earth-chris Handling editor: @graciellehigino (Retired) Reviewers: @chrisborges, @gabrieldansereau Similarity score: 0.8038

hmis: A python tool to visualize and analyze HMIS data Submitting author: @mattbellis Handling editor: @leeper (Retired) Reviewers: @alexhanna Similarity score: 0.8029

swisslandstats-geopy: Python tools for the land statistics datasets from the Swiss Federal Statistical Office Submitting author: @martibosch Handling editor: @leouieda (Retired) Reviewers: @weikang9009, @darribas Similarity score: 0.7999

forestatrisk: a Python package for modelling and forecasting deforestation in the tropics Submitting author: @ghislainv Handling editor: @kbarnhart (Retired) Reviewers: @molgor, @ethanwhite Similarity score: 0.7998

⚠️ 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.

[mdp0023]

If it's possible we would like to update the version to be reviewed to v1.1.1, we had a minor patch applied a few weeks back.

[crvernon]

@mdp0023 no problem at all. This will update automatically.

:wave: @samhforbes - this one has been held up for a bit due to Olivia being on break right now. Will you help get a SBCS editor assigned to this one to get it out of waitlist? Thanks so much!

[samhforbes]

@editorialbot invite @mstimberg as editor @mstimberg do you think you might be able to handle this one as editor?

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[mstimberg]

@samhforbes I am afraid I have to decline at this time – I am about to leave for summer holidays and will only be fully back to office in September…

[samhforbes]

@editorialbot invite @Nikoleta-v3 as editor @Nikoleta-v3 do you have capacity to take this on as editor?

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[Nikoleta-v3]

Hello @samhforbes! My apologies, but I’m currently editing two submissions and reviewing a third, so I won’t be able to take this one 🙏🏻 😄

[samhforbes]

@editorialbot invite @sappelhoff as editor @sappelhoff do you think you might be able to handle this one as editor?

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[sappelhoff]

@editorialbot assign @sappelhoff as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @sappelhoff is now the editor

[sappelhoff]

@samhforbes thanks for reaching out, I'll be happy to edit this.

Hi @mdp0023 👋 do you have suggestions as to whom I shall invite as reviewers? (if in line with our COI policies)

[mdp0023]

Thank you for agreeing to be the editor on this submission. A few possible reviewers could be: James Millington: jamesdamillington Fabio Ashtar Telarico: FATelarico Mashrur Arafin Ayon: mashrur-ayon

[sappelhoff]

Thanks for the suggestions @mdp0023!

👋 @jamesdamillington @FATelarico @mashrur-ayon would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[sappelhoff]

👋 @dataspider @LCB0B @bkrayfield would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[dataspider]

@sappelhoff I'm happy to review this but cannot guarantee full execution until the second half of October; let me know if this works for you. Meanwhile, I took a quick pass through the companion paper and would encourage the authors (@mdp0023) to go through the review guidelines you linked above themselves and ensure that they provide enough evidence on the individual checklist items in their write-up to go through the review process smoothly.

[mdp0023]

@sappelhoff I'm happy to review this but cannot guarantee full execution until the second half of October; let me know if this works for you. Meanwhile, I took a quick pass through the companion paper and would encourage the authors (@mdp0023) to go through the review guidelines you linked above themselves and ensure that they provide enough evidence on the individual checklist items in their write-up to go through the review process smoothly.

I appreciate the suggestion and will spend some time this week double checking the review guidelines.

[sappelhoff]

@editorialbot add @dataspider as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@dataspider added to the reviewers list!

[sappelhoff]

Thanks for volunteering @dataspider, and for providing a tentative timeline in advance, AND for constructive input even before the review started 👏

[bkrayfield]

@sappelhoff I can review this as well.

[sappelhoff]

@editorialbot add @bkrayfield as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@bkrayfield added to the reviewers list!

[sappelhoff]

Thanks @bkrayfield!

I will leave this pre-review issue open for a bit more, to see whether we get one more volunteer for the review. Else, we will go on with two reviewers instead of three, and I will open the review issue for all of us to get started.

[sappelhoff]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/7212.