[PRE REVIEW]: pyTopoComplexity: A Python package for topographic complexity analysis'

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@GeoLarryLai<!--end-author-handle-- (Larry Syu-Heng Lai) Repository: https://github.com/GeoLarryLai/pyTopoComplexity Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v0.8.1 Editor: Pending Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/caf6468ea1700ad353096ca013b60a6e"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/caf6468ea1700ad353096ca013b60a6e/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/caf6468ea1700ad353096ca013b60a6e/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/caf6468ea1700ad353096ca013b60a6e)

Author instructions

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

@GeoLarryLai 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=0.03 s (528.5 files/s, 145646.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                           6            281            705            738
TeX                              1             50              0            544
Markdown                         2            101              0            341
Jupyter Notebook                 5              0           1656            184
YAML                             2              1              4             44
TOML                             1              4              0             32
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            17            437           2365           1883
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   365  Larry Syu-Heng Lai

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 3030

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: Apache License 2.0 (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1002/2016JF003934 is OK
- 10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.02.027 is OK
- 10.1126/sciadv.aba6790 is OK
- 10.1785/0120230079 is OK
- 10.1080/01490410701295962 is OK
- 10.2193/0091-7648(2004)032[0829:CLSAFD]2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1029/1998wr900090 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-12-1267-2019 is OK
- 10.1029/2011jf002181 is OK
- 10.5194/esurf-5-21-2017 is OK
- 10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.10.022 is OK
- 10.1016/j.tree.2016.12.010 is OK
- 10.4319/lom.2005.3.203 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5176030 is OK
- 10.3390/geosciences8030094 is OK
- 10.1007/s10980-014-0118-8 is OK
- 10.1007/s11004-019-09803-x is OK
- 10.1016/j.icarus.2021.114727 is OK
- 10.1016/j.icarus.2022.115109 is OK
- 10.1098/rspa.1989.0101 is OK
- 10.4000/geomorphologie.622 is OK
- 10.1007/BF02768900 is OK
- 10.1130/GES01680.1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rse.2016.07.006 is OK
- 10.3390/geosciences9070322 is OK
- 10.1002/2018EA000372 is OK
- 10.15760/etd.8130 is OK
- 10.1029/2000JE001333 is OK
- 10.1029/2007GL031140 is OK
- 10.1029/2020GL091413 is OK
- 10.1119/1.13295 is OK
- 10.1016/0169-555X(93)90022-T is OK
- 10.1080/01490410600738021 is OK
- 10.1086/626891 is OK
- 10.1016/j.geomorph.2018.04.003 is OK
- 10.1007/s11284-011-0819-2 is OK
- 10.1002/jpln.200900094 is OK
- 10.1038/nature04452 is OK
- 10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.07.006 is OK
- 10.1785/BSSA0330030197 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: A practical guide to wavelet analysis
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ’Stillaguamish 2014’ project [lidar data], origina...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: QGIS Geographic Information System
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Rugosity_Calculator
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Topographic position and landforms analysis
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Permafrost controls on Holocene bedrock landslides...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Temporal clustering of deep-seated landslides in t...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Preliminary mapping of deep-seated landslides in t...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Relevance of moving window size in landform classi...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- 10.1016/j.cageo.2016.07.003 may be a valid DOI for title: Whitebox GAT: A case study in geomorphometric anal...

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.

[kthyng]

@GeoLarryLai Can you try to fix the paper error?

[GeoLarryLai]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[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:

TopoPyScale: A Python Package for Hillslope Climate Downscaling Submitting author: @arcticsnow Handling editor: @hugoledoux (Active) Reviewers: @dvalters, @arbennett Similarity score: 0.6899

lidar: A Python package for delineating nested surface depressions from digital elevation data Submitting author: @giswqs Handling editor: @kbarnhart (Retired) Reviewers: @laijingtao, @cheginit, @amanaster2 Similarity score: 0.6783

WrightTools: a Python package for multidimensional spectroscopy Submitting author: @untzag Handling editor: @yochannah (Retired) Reviewers: @daissi, @ivergara Similarity score: 0.6753

PyWavelets: A Python package for wavelet analysis Submitting author: @grlee77 Handling editor: @jedbrown (Active) Reviewers: @rafat, @souopgui Similarity score: 0.6733

umami: A Python package for Earth surface dynamics objective function construction Submitting author: @kbarnhart Handling editor: @meg-simula (Retired) Reviewers: @sgrieve, @tristan-salles Similarity score: 0.6702

⚠️ 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.

[GeoLarryLai]

@kthyng Based on the JOSS reviewer database, the following people may be suitable for reviewing our software:

• Logan Wren Raming
• ldominguezruben
• katmratliff
• kellykochanski
• rmsare
• margauxmouchene

[kthyng]

Hi @GeoLarryLai 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
• [ ] Documentation exists at all
• [ ] Tests of some sort
• [ ] Check paper (make sure compiles, read through, check for length 250-1000 words)
• [ ] Substantial scholarly effort
• [ ] 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.

[GeoLarryLai]

@kthyng Thank you so much!

I have suggested reviewers as mentioned and addressed the issue with the missing DOI. I believe that our manuscript and software meet the high-level requirements except for the length of the paper.

Currently, our manuscript exceeds 1,000 words by a considerable amount. The additional length is intended to provide a clearer explanation of the computational and mathematical choices used in our software, which, to our knowledge, is not well-addressed in other peer-reviewed publications on this topic. I hope this excess length is acceptable for JOSS to proceed with the review process.

I also notice that I made a typo in the article title of this github thread (an unnecessary apostrophe at the end). Hope it is fixable. My apologies for the inconvenience.

[kthyng]

@GeoLarryLai I am going to ping the editorial board to look at your submission to see if it fits JOSS in terms of substantial scholarly effort, given the relatively small size of the package. This process will take a few weeks; thanks for your patience.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot query scope

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[arfon]

@GeoLarryLai - thanks for your submission to JOSS. Unfortunately, after review by the JOSS editorial team we've determined that this submission doesn't meet our substantial scholarly effort criterion.

One possible alternative to JOSS is to follow GitHub's guide on how to create a permanent archive and DOI for your software. This DOI can then be used by others to cite your work.

[arfon]

@editorialbot reject

[editorialbot]

Paper rejected.