[PRE REVIEW]: plasticparcels: A python package for marine plastic dispersal simulations and parameterisation development using parcels

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@michaeldenes<!--end-author-handle-- (Michael C Denes) Repository: https://github.com/OceanParcels/plasticparcels Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v0.2.0 Editor: !--editor-->@AnjaliSandip<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @zhenwu0728, @philippemiron Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1fcf581b2d63d4cd7603145efbfa2d07"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1fcf581b2d63d4cd7603145efbfa2d07/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1fcf581b2d63d4cd7603145efbfa2d07/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1fcf581b2d63d4cd7603145efbfa2d07)

Author instructions

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

@michaeldenes 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 (810.0 files/s, 163366.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                           9            471            648           1046
Jupyter Notebook                 5              0           2796            456
TeX                              1             40              0            388
Markdown                         5             89              0            209
JSON                             1              0              0            167
YAML                             7             11             12            137
TOML                             1              7              0             56
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
reStructuredText                 2             25             22             21
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            33            655           3486           2515
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    75  Erik van Sebille
    70  Michael Denes
    66  michaeldenes

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1688

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

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

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/bf02846028 is OK
- 10.1029/94rg01872 is OK
- 10.1007/s10236-012-0523-y is OK
- 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.10.027 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.12.006 is OK
- 10.1126/science.1260352 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ocemod.2016.01.005 is OK
- 10.1002/lom3.10114 is OK
- 10.3389/fmars.2017.00030 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-10-1733-2017 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.est.6b04702 is OK
- 10.1126/sciadv.1700782 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-10-4175-2017 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aao5646 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-11-1405-2018 is OK
- 10.1016/j.pocean.2018.04.007 is OK
- 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.02.052 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-12-3571-2019 is OK
- 10.1088/1748-9326/ab6d7d is OK
- 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110858 is OK
- 10.1029/2020jc017098 is OK
- 10.3389/fmars.2021.667591 is OK
- 10.1126/sciadv.aaz5803 is OK
- 10.1088/1748-9326/abecbd is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-15-1995-2022 is OK
- 10.5194/bg-19-2211-2022 is OK
- 10.1038/s41561-023-01216-0 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Review of leeway: field experiments and implementa...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Leeway divergence. USCG R&D center technical repor...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Copernicus Marine Service

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 @michaeldenes 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] OSI-approved license
• [x] Installation instructions
• [x] Documentation
• [ ] Tests of some sort
• [x] Check paper
• [ ] Substantial scholarly effort
• [x] Clear research application/in scope

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.

[kthyng]

• the tests directory is very light but I see there are example notebooks that potentially could be run to verify software behavior. What do you think @michaeldenes?
• The size of this package is borderline so I am going to ping the editorial board to see if it is in scope in terms of substantial scholarly effort.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot query scope

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[michaeldenes]

Hi @kthyng,

We realised after your comment that the tests directory is very light indeed, I'm currently in the processes of adding a number of new unit tests to ensure the functionality works as expected.

As for potential reviewers, we suggest from the following: Mattia Almansi - malmans2 Tomas Chor - tomchor Pål Næverlid Sævik - pnsaevik George Datseris - Datseris Zhen Wu - zhenwu0728 Gael Forget - gaelforget

Thanks, Michael

[kthyng]

Ok this has passed the scope query, and is added to the waitlist to wait for an appropriate editor. How long do you expect the tests development to take?

[michaeldenes]

Thanks @kthyng, I've created a number of unit tests, now released in the main branch.

We can create a new release of the code if that is useful? I might include a couple of enhancements in the meantime if that's the case!

[kthyng]

Hi @michaeldenes! You don't need to create a new release but you can, the reviewers will review whatever the newest code available is when they start. If you keep significantly developing the code at the point they are reviewing and it's unrelated to their work/comments/questions and it's new stuff, then it would be good to clarify that with separate versions or have that work in a branch (keeping in mind sometimes the reviews can take awhile depending on how they go). Does that make sense?

[michaeldenes]

Thanks @kthyng, I'll keep things separated in versions/branches, it would only be a few minor optimisations (to reduce file sizes, etc.), but nothing game-changing. Cheers!

[kthyng]

@AnjaliSandip Can you edit this submission?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @AnjaliSandip as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[AnjaliSandip]

@AnjaliSandip Can you edit this submission?

Yes!

[kthyng]

@editorialbot assign @AnjaliSandip as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @AnjaliSandip is now the editor

[AnjaliSandip]

👋 @malmans2, @tomchor, @pnsaevik, & @Datseris would 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.

[Datseris]

sorry, this is unrelated to my expertise in either science or programming.

[malmans2]

Hi there, Unfortunately, I won't be able to start a new review until mid-September.

[pnsaevik]

The same goes for me, I won't have time until mid-September at the earliest.

[AnjaliSandip]

👋 @zhenwu0728, @tomchor, & @gaelforget, would 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.

[zhenwu0728]

Hi @AnjaliSandip, I can review this submission.

[AnjaliSandip]

Thanks @zhenwu0728!

[AnjaliSandip]

@editorialbot add @zhenwu0728 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

[AnjaliSandip]

@editorialbot add @zhenwu0728 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@zhenwu0728 added to the reviewers list!

[AnjaliSandip]

@editorialbot list reviewers

[editorialbot]

Please log in the JOSS Reviewers site to search through the list of current reviewers.

[AnjaliSandip]

@michaeldenes could you suggest additional potential reviewers? Please ensure not to @- tag your suggestions.

[michaeldenes]

Hi @AnjaliSandip, four other potential reviewers are:

Shane Elipot - selipot Philippe Miron - philippemiron Romain Caneill - rcaneill Travis Hahn - travis-j-hahn

[AnjaliSandip]

👋@selipot, @philippemiron, and @travis-j-hahn, would you 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.

[travis-j-hahn]

Hello,

This is, unfortunately, outside of my scientific domain. Best of luck!

[philippemiron]

I can review it.

[selipot]

I would be happy to if I have a reasonable amount of time. When would you need my review?

On Aug 8, 2024, at 1:55 PM, Anjali Sandip @.***> wrote:

 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. DO NOT CLICK ON LINKS or OPEN ATTACHMENTS unless you know and trust the sender.

@.***https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/selipot__;!!KVu0SnhVq1hAFvslES2Y!KHCVRKlRn6ZaO6m24OaNHzfS9MNIjzI1rjnHDjk10gtBcMJ6msbozyWd4rkvgqKeUr6ICRZpsTh8yeNyDRbhWDCE$, @philippemironhttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/philippemiron__;!!KVu0SnhVq1hAFvslES2Y!KHCVRKlRn6ZaO6m24OaNHzfS9MNIjzI1rjnHDjk10gtBcMJ6msbozyWd4rkvgqKeUr6ICRZpsTh8yeNyDVA8VoGC$, and @travis-j-hahnhttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/travis-j-hahn__;!!KVu0SnhVq1hAFvslES2Y!KHCVRKlRn6ZaO6m24OaNHzfS9MNIjzI1rjnHDjk10gtBcMJ6msbozyWd4rkvgqKeUr6ICRZpsTh8yeNyDUk1Fsoi$, would you review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.htmlhttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html__;!!KVu0SnhVq1hAFvslES2Y!KHCVRKlRn6ZaO6m24OaNHzfS9MNIjzI1rjnHDjk10gtBcMJ6msbozyWd4rkvgqKeUr6ICRZpsTh8yeNyDW8yFeJ9$.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6821*issuecomment-2276366833__;Iw!!KVu0SnhVq1hAFvslES2Y!KHCVRKlRn6ZaO6m24OaNHzfS9MNIjzI1rjnHDjk10gtBcMJ6msbozyWd4rkvgqKeUr6ICRZpsTh8yeNyDZh1z-3P$, or unsubscribehttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABZZWGW2MR4TY7WIID3CTLTZQOWJLAVCNFSM6AAAAABITQ2O3KVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDENZWGM3DMOBTGM__;!!KVu0SnhVq1hAFvslES2Y!KHCVRKlRn6ZaO6m24OaNHzfS9MNIjzI1rjnHDjk10gtBcMJ6msbozyWd4rkvgqKeUr6ICRZpsTh8yeNyDcUDm5jX$. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[AnjaliSandip]

@editorialbot add @philippemiron as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@philippemiron added to the reviewers list!

[AnjaliSandip]

I would be happy to if I have a reasonable amount of time. When would you need my review? On Aug 8, 2024, at 1:55 PM, Anjali Sandip @.> wrote:  CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. DO NOT CLICK ON LINKS or OPEN ATTACHMENTS unless you know and trust the sender. @.https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/selipot__;!!KVu0SnhVq1hAFvslES2Y!KHCVRKlRn6ZaO6m24OaNHzfS9MNIjzI1rjnHDjk10gtBcMJ6msbozyWd4rkvgqKeUr6ICRZpsTh8yeNyDRbhWDCE$, @philippemironhttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/philippemiron__;!!KVu0SnhVq1hAFvslES2Y!KHCVRKlRn6ZaO6m24OaNHzfS9MNIjzI1rjnHDjk10gtBcMJ6msbozyWd4rkvgqKeUr6ICRZpsTh8yeNyDVA8VoGC$, and @travis-j-hahnhttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/travis-j-hahn__;!!KVu0SnhVq1hAFvslES2Y!KHCVRKlRn6ZaO6m24OaNHzfS9MNIjzI1rjnHDjk10gtBcMJ6msbozyWd4rkvgqKeUr6ICRZpsTh8yeNyDUk1Fsoi$, would you review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.htmlhttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html__;!!KVu0SnhVq1hAFvslES2Y!KHCVRKlRn6ZaO6m24OaNHzfS9MNIjzI1rjnHDjk10gtBcMJ6msbozyWd4rkvgqKeUr6ICRZpsTh8yeNyDW8yFeJ9$. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6821*issuecomment-2276366833__;Iw!!KVu0SnhVq1hAFvslES2Y!KHCVRKlRn6ZaO6m24OaNHzfS9MNIjzI1rjnHDjk10gtBcMJ6msbozyWd4rkvgqKeUr6ICRZpsTh8yeNyDZh1z-3P$, or unsubscribehttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABZZWGW2MR4TY7WIID3CTLTZQOWJLAVCNFSM6AAAAABITQ2O3KVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDENZWGM3DMOBTGM__;!!KVu0SnhVq1hAFvslES2Y!KHCVRKlRn6ZaO6m24OaNHzfS9MNIjzI1rjnHDjk10gtBcMJ6msbozyWd4rkvgqKeUr6ICRZpsTh8yeNyDcUDm5jX$. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

A JOSS review is typically completed in 6 weeks.

[AnjaliSandip]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/7094.