[PRE REVIEW]: PDR: The Planetary Data Reader

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@Sierra-MC<!--end-author-handle-- (Sierra V. Brown) Repository: https://github.com/MillionConcepts/pdr Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss_paper Version: v1.1.2 Editor: !--editor-->@dfm<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @AndrewAnnex, @gaelccc Managing EiC: Dan Foreman-Mackey

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/097f846381b65e8d4b8be1d0aeb9c3ba"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/097f846381b65e8d4b8be1d0aeb9c3ba/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/097f846381b65e8d4b8be1d0aeb9c3ba/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/097f846381b65e8d4b8be1d0aeb9c3ba)

Author instructions

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

@Sierra-MC 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=0.09 s (1073.6 files/s, 154443.8 lines/s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                      files          blank        comment           code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                           81           1361           2737           6793
Markdown                          9            390              0           2297
YAML                              8              6             11            133
TeX                               1             14              0            121
Jupyter Notebook                  1              0            604             59
Bourne Again Shell                1              1              0              2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            101           1772           3352           9405
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   258  michael
   216  Sierra-MC
   166  mstclair@millionconcepts.com
   129  Sierra Brown
   126  curtiss9
    80  m-stclair
    48  cmillion
    32  Sierra V. Kaufman
    19  Sierra V. Brown
    11  Zack Weinberg
    10  Chase Million
     5  M. St. Clair
     1  Michael Aye

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.17189/2ass-x557 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: HOW WE’LL KNOW WE CAN READ ALL THE DATA IN THE PDS...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: pdr-tests: the testing suite/toolchain for ‘pdr‘
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Planetary Data System Standards Reference Version ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Viking Orbiter Imaging Bundle
- No DOI given, and none found for title: planetarypy
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Automated Spectral Image Processing Techniques in ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: pilo: Planetary Input/Output
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PDS4 Tools
- No DOI given, and none found for title: VICAR: Video Image Communication and Retrieval
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Astropy Project
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Rasterio

INVALID DOIs

- 10.17189/07q9-ph18 is INVALID
- 10.17189/f8xf-6a29 is INVALID
- https://zenodo.org/records/12545688 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 905

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

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

[dfm]

@Sierra-MC — Thanks for your submission! All the suitable JOSS editors are currently working at capacity so I'm going to "waitlist" this review until an editor with the relevant expertise is available to take it on. Thanks for your patience!

[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:

scida: scalable analysis for scientific big data Submitting author: @cbyrohl Handling editor: @mbobra (Active) Reviewers: @egaraldi, @kyleaoman Similarity score: 0.7200

EarthPy: A Python package that makes it easier to explore and plot raster and vector data using open source Python tools. Submitting author: @lwasser Handling editor: @arfon (Active) Reviewers: @arfon Similarity score: 0.7141

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

Pooch: A friend to fetch your data files Submitting author: @leouieda Handling editor: @danielskatz (Active) Reviewers: @hmaarrfk, @martindurant Similarity score: 0.6983

NAIF PDS4 Bundler: A Python package to generate SPICE PDS4 archives Submitting author: @mcostasitja Handling editor: @mbobra (Active) Reviewers: @athulpg007, @SimonMolinsky Similarity score: 0.6979

⚠️ 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.

[dfm]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

@Sierra-MC — Thanks for your patience! This summer has been slow for JOSS turnarounds, but we're starting to catch up. I'll take your submission on as editor and start looking for reviewers early next week. Please feel free to share any recommendations for reviewers from your networks or our database in the meantime.

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @dfm is now the editor

[Sierra-MC]

@dfm Thanks so much for being our editor! No problem on the wait, we get that things get busy and appreciate your time. Some reviewers that might fit are: @doriannblain , @steo85it , and @AndrewAnnex if they're willing and able.

[AndrewAnnex]

yeah I'd be willing to review

[Sierra-MC]

@dfm How many reviewers are needed?

[steo85it]

Hi! This looks very interesting, although I am quite over-booked at the moment and cannot guarantee a quick review/feedback.

[doriannblain]

Hi, unfortunately I am a bit busy at the moment, so I will have to pass this time.

[dfm]

@editorialbot add @AndrewAnnex as reviewer

Thanks @Sierra-MC for your suggestions and to @AndrewAnnex, @steo85it, and @doriannblain for your responses!!

(I should have mentioned this before, but we actually prefer that authors not tag people directly like that, instead having the mention from the editor.)

I've added @AndrewAnnex as a reviewer (thanks for your positive response!), and we'll keep looking for one more. I'll send out some more pings shortly!

[editorialbot]

@AndrewAnnex added to the reviewers list!

[dfm]

:wave: @LevN0, @sgillies, @rouault — would any of you be willing to review this submission for The Journal of Open Source Software? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[sgillies]

@dfm no, I won't be able to review.

[steo85it]

@dfm I would suggest asking "gaelccc" as additional reviewer

[dfm]

👋 @gaelccc — would you be willing to review this submission for The Journal of Open Source Software? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[Sierra-MC]

@dfm perhaps AStcherbinine might be a fitting reviewer?

[gaelccc]

@dfm Yes, I am willing to review it. I am under a large load of work right now though, so it might take me some time.

[dfm]

@editorialbot add @gaelccc as reviewer

Thanks for the positive response, @gaelccc! Let's give it a go and let me know if there's anything that I can do to help with the process as we go.

I'm going to get the review started in a new thread in just a moment, and I'll have a lot more info over there. Thanks all!

[editorialbot]

@gaelccc added to the reviewers list!

[dfm]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/7256.