[PRE REVIEW]: GLORY: a Python Package for Global Reservoir Water Yield and Cost Estimation

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@mengqi-z<!--end-author-handle-- (Mengqi Zhao) Repository: https://github.com/JGCRI/glory Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v0.1.0 Editor: Pending Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f56cbf47263a0b4858ce8d65dc18ed11"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f56cbf47263a0b4858ce8d65dc18ed11/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f56cbf47263a0b4858ce8d65dc18ed11/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f56cbf47263a0b4858ce8d65dc18ed11)

Author instructions

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

@mengqi-z 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

- 10.5194/gmd-2023-204 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-12-677-2019 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-16-5449-2023 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.2214291119 is OK
- 10.1007/s10584-016-1604-6 is OK
- 10.1088/1748-9326/aab2b5 is OK
- 10.1002/jame.20044 is OK
- 10.1029/2018WR023452 is OK
- 10.1029/2017WR022478 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EF002621 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2013.12.016 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD034485 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasec.2019.100056 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-021-02925-0 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104947 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.06.037 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.03 s (1478.6 files/s, 154897.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          13            518            550            875
CSS                              2             54             11            244
reStructuredText                 7            225            226            235
TeX                              1             15              0            191
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0             84            186
YAML                             6             22              8            139
Markdown                         4             44              0            135
TOML                             1              5              0             54
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            37            895            887           2094
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    52  Mengqi Zhao
    17  crvernon
     1  Chris Vernon
     1  Wild

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1133

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

🟡 License found: Other (Check here for OSI approval)

[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:

statemodify: a Python framework to facilitate accessible exploratory modeling for discovering drought vulnerabilities Submitting author: @rg727 Handling editor: @cheginit (Active) Reviewers: @barneydobson, @ekblad Similarity score: 0.6898

pyflowline: a mesh-independent river network generator for hydrologic models Submitting author: @changliao1025 Handling editor: @observingClouds (Active) Reviewers: @smchartrand, @andres-patrignani Similarity score: 0.6798

mosartwmpy: A Python implementation of the MOSART-WM coupled hydrologic routing and water management model Submitting author: @thurber Handling editor: @kthyng (Active) Reviewers: @JannisHoch, @cheginit Similarity score: 0.6768

NeuralHydrology --- A Python library for Deep Learning research in hydrology Submitting author: @kratzert Handling editor: @elbeejay (Active) Reviewers: @ammilten, @chuckaustin, @jhamman Similarity score: 0.6694

baseflow: a MATLAB and GNU Octave package for baseflow recession analysis Submitting author: @mgcooper Handling editor: @elbeejay (Active) Reviewers: @alessandroamaranto, @tianydong Similarity score: 0.6692

⚠️ 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.

[kthyng]

Hi @mengqi-z 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
• [x] Tests of some sort
• [x] Check paper (make sure compiles, read through, check for length 250-1000 words)
• [ ] 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]

Due to the relatively small size of this package, I will ping the editorial board to have a look and see if this is in scope for JOSS in terms of substantial scholarly effort. This will take a few weeks, thanks for your patience.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot query scope

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[kthyng]

@mengqi-z Sorry for the delay here, we are still working to get a clear vote on your submission. Thanks for your patience.

[kthyng]

@mengqi-z Can you explain the difference in content between this submission and the GMD paper https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2023-204/gmd-2023-204.pdf?

[mengqi-z]

Hi @kthyng,

The JOSS submission and the GMD paper are distinctly different in both content and purpose:

1. Focus and Scope

• GMD Paper: Primarily a methodology development paper that details the GCAM-GLORY framework and the novel interactions between GCAM and GLORY. It centers on how GLORY impacts GCAM's results and the integrated GCAM-GLORY framework. This paper is and always will be viewed as a "GCAM" paper, which will create (and has already created) confusion about whether GLORY is a model that stands on its own and has utility beyond GCAM. GLORY needs its own paper to establish its identity and functionality distinctly from GCAM. Indeed, many of GLORY's future users will be interested solely in water resources planning and management challenges rather than simulating coupled human-Earth systems (as is done with a GCAM-GLORY coupling).

• JOSS Submission: Focuses on GLORY's functionality as an independent, flexible Python package. It emphasizes GLORY's standalone capabilities and its potential applications beyond GCAM integration.

2. Software Development Stage

• GMD Paper: Presents GLORY in its initial stage, where it is tightly coupled with GCAM. In the GMD paper, GLORY is not an independent model but part of the integrated GCAM-GLORY framework.

• JOSS Submission: Introduces GLORY as a further developed, standalone Python package. It offers greater flexibility through its modular design and can be used independently of GCAM.

3. User Application

• GMD Paper: The code and data provided are specific to reproducing the paper's results within the GCAM-GLORY framework.

• JOSS Submission: Presents GLORY as a tool that users can apply to various scenarios, with or without GCAM integration.

4. Technical Implementation

• GMD Paper: Describes GLORY as a set of scripts integrated within the GCAM environment.

• JOSS Submission: Presents GLORY as a structured Python package with defined functionalities.

While the GMD paper introduces the GLORY methodology within the context of GCAM, the JOSS submission presents GLORY as a mature, independent software package with broader applications and enhanced usability.

[kthyng]

@mengqi-z I'm really sorry about how long this has taken. The editorial board is split on whether to review this and it feels borderline. Your explanation above it helpful. Here are some comments from the editorial board:

• It appears to me that there is a significant amount of work here, although the Use Guide seems to be lacking examples so it is hard to say for sure. The narrative documentation describes both cleaning multiple different datasources, which does take effort, as well as providing two model calculations.
• It seems like the data still needs to be provided by the user, though, which is less effort than if the tool handled data access as well as cleaning.

It does seem that this and the GMD paper are distinct, however, when there is such a strong relationship between papers we like to see the JOSS submission to have a larger substantial scholarly effort than this does. I am going to reject this but recommend that you and your co-authors put in some more effort at fleshing out the documentation more to show more expanded examples and add some additional functionality if possible. For example, could data/model access also be part of this package?

Thank you for your patience and submission.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot reject

[editorialbot]

Paper rejected.