[PRE REVIEW]: NcCut: A NetCDF Viewer and Transecting Tool

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@rchartra<!--end-author-handle-- (Robin Chartrand) Repository: https://github.com/rchartra/NcCut Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v0.4.3 Editor: !--editor-->@hugoledoux<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @platipodium, @huite Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/078dcd397b81d435fce2bf9e78431dcd"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/078dcd397b81d435fce2bf9e78431dcd/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/078dcd397b81d435fce2bf9e78431dcd/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/078dcd397b81d435fce2bf9e78431dcd)

Author instructions

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

@rchartra 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

- 10.1029/2021JC018075 is OK
- 10.5194/os-17-1421-2021 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5625933 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7897029 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5176030 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10199 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5869838 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Panoply Data Viewer
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Ncview

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.09 s (715.4 files/s, 235275.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML                             8           1492             26           8695
SVG                              1              0              0           2671
Python                          18            598           1299           2521
CSS                              6            339             51           1324
JavaScript                      12            138            228            912
reStructuredText                 9            179            101            257
Markdown                         2             54              0            175
YAML                             3             12              0            139
TeX                              1              8              0             85
TOML                             1              6              0             45
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            274             21
make                             1              4              7              9
JSON                             2              0              0              2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            66           2838           1987          16882
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   277  rchartra
    14  github-actions[bot]

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1008

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU General Public License v3.0 (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:

nctoolkit: A Python package for netCDF analysis and post-processing Submitting author: @robertjwilson Handling editor: @martinfleis (Active) Reviewers: @malmans2, @platipodium Similarity score: 0.7466

NCDatasets.jl: a Julia package for manipulating netCDF data sets Submitting author: @Alexander-Barth Handling editor: @majensen (Active) Reviewers: @lanari, @boriskaus Similarity score: 0.7345

ncompare: A Python package for comparing netCDF structures Submitting author: @dkauf42 Handling editor: @arfon (Active) Reviewers: @cmtso, @cmarmo Similarity score: 0.7332

Seaduck: A python package for Eulerian and Lagrangian interpolation on ocean datasets Submitting author: @MaceKuailv Handling editor: @kthyng (Active) Reviewers: @pnsaevik, @syedhamidali Similarity score: 0.7143

OceanSpy: A Python package to facilitate ocean model data analysis and visualization Submitting author: @malmans2 Handling editor: @kthyng (Active) Reviewers: @tomchor, @platipodium Similarity score: 0.7135

⚠️ 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 @rchartra 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 exists at all
• [x] Tests of some sort
• [x] Check paper (make sure compiles, read through, check for length 250-1000 words)
• [x] Substantial scholarly effort
• [x] Clear research application

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.

Also please link to the previous pre-review issue.

[kthyng]

Still love the look of this tool and it looks like you've made it ready for other people to use and install!

We have a backlog of submissions so I will add this to our waitlist. Thanks for your patience.

[kthyng]

@hugoledoux Can you edit this submission?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @hugoledoux as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[hugoledoux]

@editorialbot assign @hugoledoux as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @hugoledoux is now the editor

[hugoledoux]

@kthyng @rchartra I'm going at the end of this busy week 10 days on holidays, I'll try to start this before Friday but I doubt it'll happen.

In the meantime, perhaps you could provide 5 potential reviewers from our database (https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/lookup) or outside, put their github usernames without the '@' so that they don't get pinged needlessly.

[rchartra]

Hello! Here are five I think would be a good fit:

• Chilipp
• wingtorres
• bradyrx
• malmans2
• koldunovn

[platipodium]

@hugoledoux I'd be interested to review pending completion of my currently ongoing review work for JOSS https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/7025

[hugoledoux]

great, I'll add you now as reviewer. Cheers for prompt reply.

[hugoledoux]

@editorialbot add @platipodium as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@platipodium added to the reviewers list!

[hugoledoux]

@rchartra sorry this is taking long, I have had several reviewers who refused (because holidays or no time). I am hoping to find the 2nd soon.

[hugoledoux]

@editorialbot add @huite as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@huite added to the reviewers list!

[hugoledoux]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/7185.

[hugoledoux]

@rchartra sorry this is taking long, I have had several reviewers who refused (because holidays or no time). I am hoping to find the 2nd soon.

I even had 2 reviewers who refused on the same day because they were about to get a baby!

[rchartra]

Wow, well thank you!