[PRE REVIEW]: xagg: A Python package to aggregate gridded data onto polygons

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@ks905383<!--end-author-handle-- (Kevin Schwarzwald) Repository: https://github.com/ks905383/xagg/ Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss_submission Version: v3.2.3 Editor: !--editor-->@crvernon<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @thurber, @hariharanragothaman Managing EiC: Chris Vernon

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9e1c6dc8ddde36a22ce811b641a9b53a"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9e1c6dc8ddde36a22ce811b641a9b53a/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9e1c6dc8ddde36a22ce811b641a9b53a/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9e1c6dc8ddde36a22ce811b641a9b53a)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @ks905383. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@ks905383 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

- 10.1002/qj.3803 is OK
- 10.1093/reep/ret016 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.0906865106 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aal4369 is OK
- 10.21105/jose.00090 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.2208095119 is OK
- 10.1093/qje/qjac020 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.8370810 is OK
- 10.48690/1523377 is OK
- 10.3390/rs15092247 is OK
- 10.20944/preprints202406.0149.v1 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2311.18521 is OK
- 10.1002/met.2101 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.148 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.12625316 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- None

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.04 s (1067.1 files/s, 236184.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XML                              1             72              1           2934
Python                          17            732           1280           1656
YAML                            15             12             44            283
TeX                              1             14              0            233
reStructuredText                 6             91             43            132
Markdown                         2             47              0            105
Jupyter Notebook                 2              0           2409             38
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            46            980           3785           5416
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   123  Kevin Schwarzwald
    13  kerriegeil
    10  ks905383
     6  dependabot[bot]
     3  Ray Bell
     3  jsadler2

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1022

✅ 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:

diyepw: A Python package for Do-It-Yourself EnergyPlus weather file generation Submitting author: @amandadsmith Handling editor: @timtroendle (Retired) Reviewers: @samuelduchesne, @fneum Similarity score: 0.7221

swisslandstats-geopy: Python tools for the land statistics datasets from the Swiss Federal Statistical Office Submitting author: @martibosch Handling editor: @leouieda (Retired) Reviewers: @weikang9009, @darribas Similarity score: 0.7209

rmap: An R package to plot and compare tabular data on customizable maps across scenarios and time Submitting author: @zarrarkhan Handling editor: @hugoledoux (Active) Reviewers: @CamilleMorlighem, @maczokni Similarity score: 0.7163

xclim: xarray-based climate data analytics Submitting author: @Zeitsperre Handling editor: @kthyng (Active) Reviewers: @kthyng Similarity score: 0.7142

weatherOz: An API Client for Australian Weather and Climate Data Resources in R Submitting author: @bozaah Handling editor: @arfon (Active) Reviewers: @JanLauGe, @rogerssam Similarity score: 0.7089

⚠️ 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.

[crvernon]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @crvernon is now the editor

[crvernon]

:wave: @ks905383 - I think I'll take this one myself. I'll get you two reviewers and we can kick off your formal review.

[crvernon]

@thurber - you have done a good bit of this kind of work. Do you have time to review (4 to 6 week turnaround) this one?

[crvernon]

👋 @jorisvandenbossche - Would you be willing to review this submission to JOSS? Should be right down your alley. We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[thurber]

@crvernon, yes, I can review

[crvernon]

@editorialbot add @thurber as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@thurber added to the reviewers list!

[ks905383]

Wonderful, thank you all for taking the time. I look forward to your comments!

[hariharanragothaman]

@crvernon - Could I also sign-up to co-review this please?

[crvernon]

:wave: @hariharanragothaman - may I ask how you heard about this review?

[hariharanragothaman]

@crvernon Thanks for your response. Appreciate it. 🫡 👍🏻

1. To give some background I was looking for reviewing opportunities and I had signed up to be a reviewer.
2. My JOSS reviewer profile for reference: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/reviewers/4516
3. I filtered through issues in this repository - specifically on Track5 & Track7 - which falls under my areas of interest and expertise.

Happy to provide more details and context.

[crvernon]

@editorialbot add @hariharanragothaman as reviewer

Thanks for the clarification @hariharanragothaman. I'll add you as a reviewer.

[editorialbot]

@hariharanragothaman added to the reviewers list!

[crvernon]

@editorialbot start review

👋 - Alright @ks905383 , @thurber, and @hariharanragothaman - I am going to close this Pre-Review and kick off the full review which you should receive a notification for. Thanks!

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/7239.