[PRE REVIEW]: DroneWQ: A Python library for processing multispectral drone imagery for water quality applications

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@aewindle110<!--end-author-handle-- (Anna Windle) Repository: https://github.com/aewindle110/DroneWQ Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main Version: v1.0.0 Editor: Pending Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9b630a65326e7da156390410fab535dc"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9b630a65326e7da156390410fab535dc/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9b630a65326e7da156390410fab535dc/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9b630a65326e7da156390410fab535dc)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @aewindle110. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@aewindle110 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/fee.2472 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rse.2007.01.016 is OK
- 10.1080/01431160500034086 is OK
- 10.1364/oe.18.026313 is OK
- 10.1364/ao.38.007442 is OK
- 10.3389/fenvs.2021.674247 is OK
- 10.1029/2011jc007395 is OK
- 10.1029/98jc02160 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rse.2009.11.022 is OK
- 10.1029/98jc02160 is OK
- 10.1364/ao.39.003582 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rse.2007.01.016 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rse.2009.11.022 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- None

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.05 s (370.8 files/s, 151414.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          11            851           1278           2667
Markdown                         2             93              0            237
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0           1880            229
YAML                             2              1              4             55
Dockerfile                       1              6             12             13
TeX                              1             12              0             13
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            18            963           3174           3214
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   178  aewindle110
    48  Patrick Gray
    19  Anna Windle
     4  Greg Silsbe
     1  root

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 2973

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

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

[editorialbot]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[kthyng]

Hi @aewindle110 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)
• [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.

[kthyng]

@aewindle110

• Do you have any docs? I see a tutorial notebook referenced in your paper — this would be a great candidate to move to something like hosted docs in readthedocs, as a suggestion.
• Do you have tests so users (and you) can verify the software is running correctly?
• Please reduce to length of your paper to up to about 1000 words (currently 2973 words). Paper format information here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/paper.html. You can check paper length (and a few other items) with the command @editorialbot check repository though note it needs to be the first item in a comment to run correctly. Note that you could move some of this to your docs if you create some.