Closed editorialbot closed 3 weeks ago
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
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1002/joc.3413 is OK
- 10.1111/1752-1688.12956 is OK
- 10.1061/9780784408056 is OK
- 10.5194/essd-13-4349-2021 is OK
- 10.1080/10286600802003500 is OK
- 10.1175/waf-d-10-05037.1 is OK
- 10.1029/2003jd003823 is OK
- 10.1038/s44221-023-00181-7 is OK
- 10.1175/BAMS-D-21-0326.1 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1038/s41597-021-00973-0 may be a valid DOI for title: Gridded daily weather data for North America with ...
- 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106376 may be a valid DOI for title: An evaluation of gridded weather data sets for the...
INVALID DOIs
- None
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.07 s (1116.1 files/s, 214319.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVG 1 0 0 2671
Python 14 759 1532 2659
PO File 20 533 985 1487
reStructuredText 9 478 559 899
HTML 11 47 5 661
XML 1 0 0 214
INI 3 32 0 188
TeX 1 0 0 160
YAML 3 10 19 71
JavaScript 5 9 21 63
Markdown 1 19 0 46
DOS Batch 1 8 1 26
CSS 3 1 4 24
make 1 4 6 9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 74 1900 3132 9178
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
224 John Volk
26 Chris Pearson
5 Christian Dunkerly
Paper file info:
π Wordcount for paper.md
is 1366
β
The paper includes a Statement of need
section
License info:
β
License found: Apache License 2.0
(Valid open source OSI approved license)
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Five most similar historical JOSS papers:
gdess: A framework for evaluating simulated atmospheric COβ in Earth System Models
Submitting author: @dkauf42
Handling editor: @dhhagan (Retired)
Reviewers: @slayoo, @simonom
Similarity score: 0.6720
WEPPCLIFF: A command-line tool to process climate inputs for soil loss models
Submitting author: @ryanpmcg
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @kbarnhart, @marianadobre, @baharmon
Similarity score: 0.6692
TopoPyScale: A Python Package for Hillslope Climate Downscaling
Submitting author: @arcticsnow
Handling editor: @hugoledoux (Active)
Reviewers: @dvalters, @arbennett
Similarity score: 0.6677
Pyinterpolate: Spatial interpolation in Python for point measurements and aggregated datasets
Submitting author: @SimonMolinsky
Handling editor: @hugoledoux (Active)
Reviewers: @chrisbrunsdon, @kenohori, @sdesabbata
Similarity score: 0.6664
GeoClimate: a Geospatial processing toolbox for environmental and climate studies
Submitting author: @ebocher
Handling editor: @elbeejay (Active)
Reviewers: @abhishekvp, @omshinde, @arbennett
Similarity score: 0.6552
β οΈ 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.
Hi @JohnVolk 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:
In the meantime, please take a look at the comments above β¬οΈ 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.
Sounds great @kthyng! I will look over all above. Thanks for your promptness and please let me know if there is anything else I can do to help make your job easier.
Here are five suggested reviewers in the meantime, without tags: SimonMolinsky; dlebauer; Carlitosh; nmstreethran; andres-patrignani
@JohnVolk paper comments:
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Five most similar historical JOSS papers:
MetSim: A Python package for estimation and disaggregation of meteorological data
Submitting author: @arbennett
Handling editor: @sjpfenninger (Retired)
Reviewers: @Chilipp, @dsryberg
Similarity score: 0.7260
TopoPyScale: A Python Package for Hillslope Climate Downscaling
Submitting author: @arcticsnow
Handling editor: @hugoledoux (Active)
Reviewers: @dvalters, @arbennett
Similarity score: 0.7231
MWRpy: A Python package for processing microwave radiometer data
Submitting author: @tobiasmarke
Handling editor: @mengqi-z (Active)
Reviewers: @Subho07, @kvenkman
Similarity score: 0.7194
MetObs - a Python toolkit for using non-traditional meteorological observations
Submitting author: @vergauwenthomas
Handling editor: @hugoledoux (Active)
Reviewers: @ashwinvis, @Zeitsperre
Similarity score: 0.7110
agweather-qaqc: An Interactive Python Package for Quality Assurance and Quality Control of Daily Agricultural Weather Data and Calculation of Reference Evapotranspiration
Submitting author: @cwdunkerly
Handling editor: @cheginit (Active)
Reviewers: @dostuffthatmatters, @dlebauer
Similarity score: 0.7098
β οΈ 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.
@editorialbot commands
Hello @JohnVolk, 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
@editorialbot check repository
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.07 s (1094.2 files/s, 210107.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVG 1 0 0 2671
Python 14 759 1532 2659
PO File 20 533 985 1487
reStructuredText 9 478 559 899
HTML 11 47 5 661
XML 1 0 0 214
INI 3 32 0 188
TeX 1 0 0 160
YAML 3 10 19 71
JavaScript 5 9 21 63
Markdown 1 19 0 46
DOS Batch 1 8 1 26
CSS 3 1 4 24
make 1 4 6 9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 74 1900 3132 9178
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
225 John Volk
26 Chris Pearson
5 Christian Dunkerly
Paper file info:
π Wordcount for paper.md
is 1090
β
The paper includes a Statement of need
section
License info:
β
License found: Apache License 2.0
(Valid open source OSI approved license)
@editorialbot check repository
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.07 s (1108.1 files/s, 212764.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVG 1 0 0 2671
Python 14 759 1532 2659
PO File 20 533 985 1487
reStructuredText 9 478 559 899
HTML 11 47 5 661
XML 1 0 0 214
INI 3 32 0 188
TeX 1 0 0 160
YAML 3 10 19 71
JavaScript 5 9 21 63
Markdown 1 18 0 45
DOS Batch 1 8 1 26
CSS 3 1 4 24
make 1 4 6 9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 74 1899 3132 9177
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
226 John Volk
26 Chris Pearson
5 Christian Dunkerly
Paper file info:
π Wordcount for paper.md
is 994
β
The paper includes a Statement of need
section
License info:
β
License found: Apache License 2.0
(Valid open source OSI approved license)
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Five most similar historical JOSS papers:
TopoPyScale: A Python Package for Hillslope Climate Downscaling
Submitting author: @arcticsnow
Handling editor: @hugoledoux (Active)
Reviewers: @dvalters, @arbennett
Similarity score: 0.7196
WEPPCLIFF: A command-line tool to process climate inputs for soil loss models
Submitting author: @ryanpmcg
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @kbarnhart, @marianadobre, @baharmon
Similarity score: 0.7102
agweather-qaqc: An Interactive Python Package for Quality Assurance and Quality Control of Daily Agricultural Weather Data and Calculation of Reference Evapotranspiration
Submitting author: @cwdunkerly
Handling editor: @cheginit (Active)
Reviewers: @dostuffthatmatters, @dlebauer
Similarity score: 0.7081
Geodata-Harvester: A Python package to jumpstart geospatial data extraction and analysis
Submitting author: @sebhaan
Handling editor: @hugoledoux (Active)
Reviewers: @lukasbeuster, @martibosch
Similarity score: 0.7075
MetObs - a Python toolkit for using non-traditional meteorological observations
Submitting author: @vergauwenthomas
Handling editor: @hugoledoux (Active)
Reviewers: @ashwinvis, @Zeitsperre
Similarity score: 0.7051
β οΈ 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.
@JohnVolk Thanks for your responsiveness, and sorry for my delay; I was out last week. We have a backlog of submissions so I will add this to our waitlist. Thanks for your patience.
@adamrjensen Can you edit this submission?
@editorialbot invite @adamrjensen as editor
Invitation to edit this submission sent!
@AdamRJensen Might you edit this?
@hugoledoux Can you edit this submission?
@editorialbot invite @hugoledoux as editor
Invitation to edit this submission sent!
@editorialbot assign @hugoledoux as editor
Assigned! @hugoledoux is now the editor
@ArcticSnow @dvalters would you be available to be reviewer for this submission? I think you fit well!
Hello @hugoledoux , I'd be happy reviewing this library. It looks interesting. I will need 2 or 3 weeks to find some time though to focus on the review.
@editorialbot assign @ArcticSnow as reviewer
I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:
@editorialbot commands
@editorialbot add @ArcticSnow as reviewer
@ArcticSnow added to the reviewers list!
@hugoledoux I am available to review if you need a second reviewer yes :)
brilliant, thanks for prompt reply!
@editorialbot add @dvalters as reviewer
@dvalters added to the reviewers list!
@editorialbot start review
OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/7178.
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@JohnVolk<!--end-author-handle-- (John Volk) Repository: https://github.com/WSWUP/gridwxcomp Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v0.2.0 Editor: !--editor-->@hugoledoux<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @ArcticSnow, @dvalters Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng
Status
Status badge code:
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @JohnVolk. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
@JohnVolk 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: