search

openjournals / joss-reviews

Reviews for the Journal of Open Source Software
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
721 stars 38 forks source link

[REVIEW]: tRIBS v5.2: A multi-resolution, parallel platform for tributary hydrology in forest applications #6747

Closed editorialbot closed 1 month ago

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@WrenRaming<!--end-author-handle-- (L. Wren Raming) Repository: https://github.com/tribshms/tRIBS Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: 5.2.0 Editor: !--editor-->@cheginit<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @alessandroamaranto, @gutabeshu Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.13324178

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3e87fa500002b80e3ad59f88b3d43e8b"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3e87fa500002b80e3ad59f88b3d43e8b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3e87fa500002b80e3ad59f88b3d43e8b/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3e87fa500002b80e3ad59f88b3d43e8b)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@mdbartos & @alessandroamaranto, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review. First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @cheginit know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @alessandroamaranto

📝 Checklist for @gutabeshu

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

Hello humans, 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 commented 5 months ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.19 s (650.5 files/s, 437332.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C++                             48           7279          15056          36190
Bourne Shell                     4             96             89          10493
C/C++ Header                    53           1560           3685           6772
XML                              1              0              0            819
CMake                            4             47             37            632
TeX                              1             17              0            308
Markdown                         8             78              0            260
Perl                             1             37            121            219
YAML                             4             31             28            114
Dockerfile                       1             11             12             46
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           125           9156          19028          55853
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    89  WrenRaming
    85  Wren Raming
    11  tRIBS Distributed Hydrologic Model System
     9  JoshCederstrom
     3  Josh Cederstrom
     2  akram-ASU
     1  Carlos Lizarraga
     1  Enrique R. Vivoni
     1  JoseBecerra1
     1  [ Logan Raming - Sch Sustain Engr Lraming Built Envrn - Post Doctoral Scholars - evivoni ]
     1  tRIBS Distribuited Hydrologic Model System
editorialbot commented 5 months ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1175

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

License info:

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

editorialbot commented 5 months ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1029/2011WR010384 is OK
- 10.1002/eco.26 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.041 is OK
- 10.1016/0022-1694(94)02592-Y is OK
- 10.1016/S0098-3004(00)00134-5 is OK
- 10.1029/2004WR003218 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.03.026 is OK
- 10.1029/2018WR023521 is OK
- 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001560 is OK
- 10.1016/S0309-1708(02)00060-X is OK
- 10.1029/2018WR022842 is OK
- 10.4172/2157-7587.1000136 is OK
- 10.1137/S1064827595287997 is OK
- 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.161209 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.08.053 is OK
- 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2004)9:4(288) is OK
- 10.1029/2010WR010090 is OK
- 10.1029/2009WR008240 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 is OK
- 10.5194/hess-11-1683-2007 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
editorialbot commented 5 months ago

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.

cheginit commented 5 months ago

👋🏼 @WrenRaming, @mdbartos and @alessandroamaranto, this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

As a reviewer, the first step, as mentioned in the first comment of this issue, is to create a checklist for your review by entering

@editorialbot generate my checklist

as the top of a new comment in this thread.

These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#6747 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them, instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please notify me if any of you require some more time. We can also use EditorialBot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please don't hesitate to ping me (@cheginit) if you have any questions/concerns.

cheginit commented 5 months ago

@WrenRaming, there's an issue with generating PDF from the paper. You need to remove or rename the JATS file, since our editorbot should generate that file.

WrenRaming commented 5 months ago

Hi @cheginit, I've removed the JATS file as requested.

cheginit commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

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

cheginit commented 5 months ago

@WrenRaming Thanks! It fixed the issue.

cheginit commented 5 months ago

Hi @mdbartos and @alessandroamaranto, a friendly reminder for reviewing this submission.

alessandroamaranto commented 5 months ago

Review checklist for @alessandroamaranto

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

cheginit commented 4 months ago

👋🏼 @mdbartos and @alessandroamaranto, please update us on how the review is going.

alessandroamaranto commented 4 months ago

Apologies, my daughter is just born! Back at it next week :)

On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 4:46 PM Taher Chegini @.***> wrote:

👋🏼 @mdbartos https://github.com/mdbartos and @alessandroamaranto https://github.com/alessandroamaranto, please update us on how the review is going.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6747#issuecomment-2156062942, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADJOC4KH4EJFN5IWS7H7HMLZGMKM7AVCNFSM6AAAAABHUFXZRGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCNJWGA3DEOJUGI . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

-- Alessandro Amaranto. Postdoctoral research fellow Dept. of Electronics, Information, and Bioengineering Politecnico di Milano, Italy

cheginit commented 4 months ago

@alessandroamaranto That's fantastic news! Congratulations.

cheginit commented 4 months ago

@WrenRaming, I reached out to @mdbartos via email, and he notified me that he won't be able to review this package in time due to traveling. I will look for a new reviewer.

cheginit commented 4 months ago

Hi @LSRathore! 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. 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.

LSRathore commented 4 months ago

@cheginit Unfortunately, I will be unable to do so due to time constraints. I wish you luck.

cheginit commented 4 months ago

@LSRathore Thanks for your prompt response, appreciate it.

cheginit commented 4 months ago

Hi @gutabeshu! 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. 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.

gutabeshu commented 4 months ago

Hi @cheginit sure, I will be happy to review.

cheginit commented 4 months ago

@gutabeshu Thanks for agreeing to review this submission. This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

As a reviewer, the first step, as mentioned in the first comment of this issue, is to create a checklist for your review by entering

@editorialbot generate my checklist

as the top of a new comment in this thread.

These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#6747 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them, instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please notify me if any of you require some more time. We can also use EditorialBot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please don't hesitate to ping me (@cheginit) if you have any questions/concerns.

cheginit commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot add @gutabeshu as reviewer

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

@gutabeshu added to the reviewers list!

cheginit commented 4 months ago

@editorialbot remove @mdbartos as reviewer

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

@mdbartos removed from the reviewers list!

cheginit commented 4 months ago

@alessandroamaranto A friendly reminder for this review.

alessandroamaranto commented 4 months ago

my bad, I'll work on it soon

On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 2:31 PM Taher Chegini @.***> wrote:

@alessandroamaranto https://github.com/alessandroamaranto A friendly reminder for this review.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6747#issuecomment-2205966679, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADJOC4NX4BDGDG2LBGNQNITZKPVKHAVCNFSM6AAAAABHUFXZRGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDEMBVHE3DMNRXHE . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

-- Alessandro Amaranto. Postdoctoral research fellow Dept. of Electronics, Information, and Bioengineering Politecnico di Milano, Italy

cheginit commented 4 months ago

@alessandroamaranto I know you've got your hands full, and I appreciate you taking the time to work on this review.

cheginit commented 3 months ago

👋🏼 @gutabeshu, please give us an update on how the review is going.

cheginit commented 3 months ago

👋🏼 @alessandroamaranto and @gutabeshu, please update us on how the review is going.

gutabeshu commented 3 months ago

@cheginit I apologize for the delay, I will post my review by Saturday

cheginit commented 3 months ago

@gutabeshu Thank you, appreciate it!

gutabeshu commented 3 months ago

Review checklist for @gutabeshu

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

alessandroamaranto commented 3 months ago

I am happy with what I see, I am actually going to use it myself :). I noticed that the manuscript doesn't include a 'state of the field' section. However I believe this may not be critical in light of the fact that tRIBS serves as an open-source counterpart to a well-established software, and that the 'statement of needs' section already touches on relevant aspects.

cheginit commented 2 months ago

@alessandroamaranto Thanks for your reviewing this submission and providing comments. Appreciate your time. You're right in that the "statement of need" is where the authors need to provide the current state of the field. Please go ahead and mark that checkbox if you think the paper sufficiently discusses it in the "statement of need" section.

cheginit commented 2 months ago

@gutabeshu Please let me know if you're done with the review and/or have any comments.

gutabeshu commented 2 months ago

The installation procedures are clear. The model runs successfully, and the output result (Figure 3) is reproducible. I have minor comment regarding Figure 1 of the manuscript, under "Forcing and Parameters Inputs": It seems redundant to list both "Meteorological Stations" and "Precipitation Stations". I would expect "Meteorological Stations" to suffice unless the two terms refer to different types of stations. Please clarify if they represent distinct entities.

WrenRaming commented 2 months ago

Hi @gutabeshu, thank you for your feedback! Though it seems redundant to list both "Meteorological Stations" and "Precipitation Stations", the way tRIBS is formatted it ingests precipitation separately from meteorological forcings such as wind speed, etc. To that end the redundancy reflects how these data are typically ingested by tRIBS.

gutabeshu commented 2 months ago

Hi @WrenRaming, Thank you for the clarification! In that case, adding this information to the figure would be beneficial.

cheginit commented 2 months ago

@gutabeshu Thanks for working on this review, I appreciate the time you spent on this!

@alessandroamaranto Please let me know if you have any additional comments regarding the two remaining checkboxes in your review list.

cheginit commented 2 months ago

@gutabeshu There's one remaining checkbox, can you please check it if you think the submission satisfies the requirement?

gutabeshu commented 2 months ago

@cheginit right, I initially skipped it because that part was missing, but I later realized that the model has been around for quite some time, and that section might no longer be necessary.

cheginit commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

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

cheginit commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 2 months ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1029/2011WR010384 is OK
- 10.1002/eco.26 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.041 is OK
- 10.1016/0022-1694(94)02592-Y is OK
- 10.1016/S0098-3004(00)00134-5 is OK
- 10.1029/2004WR003218 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.03.026 is OK
- 10.1029/2018WR023521 is OK
- 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001560 is OK
- 10.1016/S0309-1708(02)00060-X is OK
- 10.1029/2018WR022842 is OK
- 10.4172/2157-7587.1000136 is OK
- 10.1137/S1064827595287997 is OK
- 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.161209 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.08.053 is OK
- 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2004)9:4(288) is OK
- 10.1029/2010WR010090 is OK
- 10.1029/2009WR008240 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 is OK
- 10.5194/hess-11-1683-2007 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
cheginit commented 2 months ago

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance