Paper: Echostack: A flexible and scalable open-source software toolbox for echosounder data processing

[leewujung]

If you are creating this PR in order to submit a draft of your paper, please name your PR with Paper: <title>. An editor will then add a paper label and GitHub Actions will be run to check and build your paper.

See the project readme for more information.

Editor: Meghann Agarwal @mepa

Reviewers:

• Andy Terrel @aterrel
• Ashwin Hegde @AshwinHegde

[github-actions[bot]]

Curvenote Preview

Directory	Preview	Checks	Updated (UTC)
papers/wu-jung_lee	🔍 Inspect	✅ 95 checks passed (1 optional)	Jun 19, 2024, 8:28 PM

[leewujung]

One of the papers cited does not have a DOI, so the checks keep on failing. I also replaced a couple bibtex items for websites with direct URL (since they also don't have DOIs), but feel it may still be better to cite them as bibtex items, otherwise the same URL gets repeated more than once, which feels a little bizarre.

@hongsupshin: Are these check failings ok, or could you suggest how to address them? Thanks!

Update: Just saw the option to explicitly ignore the doi-exists check in myst.yml, so this is resolved! :)

[ameyxd]

great, thanks @leewujung

[mepa]

Hi @chuchugo and @AshwinHegde! In case a little extra time is needed, the initial complete review deadline has been extended to next Wednesday, July 3rd.

[aterrel]

Howdy! I agreed to review this paper and will get a review in by July 8th.

[mepa]

Howdy! I agreed to review this paper and will get a review in by July 8th.

Thank you, @aterrel!

[mepa]

the initial complete review deadline has been extended to next Wednesday, July 3rd.

Update: the Proceedings Committee has extended the initial complete review deadline to Monday, July 8th.

[aterrel]

Independent Review Report

Reviewer: Andy R. Terrel

Department/Center/Division: Compute Products

Institution/University/Company: NVIDIA

Field of interest / expertise: Computer Science / Computational Math

Country: USA

Article reviewed: Echostack: A flexible and scalable open-source software toolbox for echosounder data processing

GENERAL EVALUATION

Please rate the paper using the following criteria (please use the abbreviation to the right of the description)::

below doesn't meet standards for academic publication meets meets or exceeds the standards for academic publication n/a not applicable

• Quality of the approach: meets

• Quality of the writing: meets

• Quality of the figures/tables: meets

SPECIFIC EVALUATION

• Is the code made publicly available and does the article sufficiently describe how to access it? We aim not to publish papers that essentially advertise proprietary software. Therefore, if the code is not publicly available, please provide a one- to two- sentence response to each of the following questions:

Yes

• Does the article present the problem in an appropriate context? Specifically, does it:

  Yes this was a well written exposition of the stack needed for modern scientific computing. As someone who has built many systems of this nature, I think the authors did a marvelous job motivating and explaining all the pieces.

• Is the content of the paper accessible to a computational scientist with no specific knowledge in the given field?

Yes

• Does the paper describe a well-formulated scientific or technical achievement?

Yes, creating a usable software stack for this domain is an accomplishment.

• Are the technical and scientific decisions well-motivated and clearly explained?

Yes

• Are the code examples (if any) sound, clear, and well-written?

No code samples

• Is the paper factually correct?

Yes

• Is the language and grammar of sufficient quality?

Yes

• Are the conclusions justified?

Yes

• Is prior work properly and fully cited?

I'm not an expert on the domain but the citations were plentiful for me to follow the factual reasoning

• Should any part of the article be shortened or expanded? Please explain.

No, it is just right.

• In your view, is the paper fit for publication in the conference proceedings? Please suggest specific improvements and indicate whether you think the article needs a significant rewrite (rather than a minor revision).

Yes it is fit for publication.