joss-reviews
joss-reviews copied to clipboard
openjournals
[REVIEW]: tRIBS v5.2: A multi-resolution, parallel platform for tributary hydrology in forest applications
Submitting author: @WrenRaming (L. Wren Raming) Repository: https://github.com/tribshms/tRIBS Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: 5.2.0 Editor: @cheginit Reviewers: @alessandroamaranto, @gutabeshu Archive: Pending
Status
Status badge code:
HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3e87fa500002b80e3ad59f88b3d43e8b"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3e87fa500002b80e3ad59f88b3d43e8b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3e87fa500002b80e3ad59f88b3d43e8b)
Reviewers and authors:
Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)
Reviewer instructions & questions
@mdbartos & @alessandroamaranto, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review. First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:
@editorialbot generate my checklist
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @cheginit know.
✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨
Checklists
📝 Checklist for @alessandroamaranto
Hello humans, 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
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.19 s (650.5 files/s, 437332.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C++ 48 7279 15056 36190
Bourne Shell 4 96 89 10493
C/C++ Header 53 1560 3685 6772
XML 1 0 0 819
CMake 4 47 37 632
TeX 1 17 0 308
Markdown 8 78 0 260
Perl 1 37 121 219
YAML 4 31 28 114
Dockerfile 1 11 12 46
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 125 9156 19028 55853
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
89 WrenRaming
85 Wren Raming
11 tRIBS Distributed Hydrologic Model System
9 JoshCederstrom
3 Josh Cederstrom
2 akram-ASU
1 Carlos Lizarraga
1 Enrique R. Vivoni
1 JoseBecerra1
1 [ Logan Raming - Sch Sustain Engr Lraming Built Envrn - Post Doctoral Scholars - evivoni ]
1 tRIBS Distribuited Hydrologic Model System
Paper file info:
📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1175
✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1029/2011WR010384 is OK
- 10.1002/eco.26 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.041 is OK
- 10.1016/0022-1694(94)02592-Y is OK
- 10.1016/S0098-3004(00)00134-5 is OK
- 10.1029/2004WR003218 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.03.026 is OK
- 10.1029/2018WR023521 is OK
- 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001560 is OK
- 10.1016/S0309-1708(02)00060-X is OK
- 10.1029/2018WR022842 is OK
- 10.4172/2157-7587.1000136 is OK
- 10.1137/S1064827595287997 is OK
- 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.161209 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.08.053 is OK
- 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2004)9:4(288) is OK
- 10.1029/2010WR010090 is OK
- 10.1029/2009WR008240 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 is OK
- 10.5194/hess-11-1683-2007 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
👋🏼 @WrenRaming, @mdbartos and @alessandroamaranto, this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.
As a reviewer, the first step, as mentioned in the first comment of this issue, is to create a checklist for your review by entering
@editorialbot generate my checklist
as the top of a new comment in this thread.
These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.
The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#6747 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them, instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.
We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please notify me if any of you require some more time. We can also use EditorialBot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.
Please don't hesitate to ping me (@cheginit) if you have any questions/concerns.
@WrenRaming, there's an issue with generating PDF from the paper. You need to remove or rename the JATS file, since our editorbot should generate that file.
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Hi @mdbartos and @alessandroamaranto, a friendly reminder for reviewing this submission.
Review checklist for @alessandroamaranto
Conflict of interest
- [x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.
Code of Conduct
- [x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.
General checks
- [x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/tribshms/tRIBS?
- [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
- [x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@WrenRaming) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
- [x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
- [x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
- [x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
- [x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.
Functionality
- [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
- [x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
- [ ] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)
Documentation
- [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
- [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
- [x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
- [x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
- [x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
- [x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support
Software paper
- [x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
- [x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
- [ ] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
- [x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
- [x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?
👋🏼 @mdbartos and @alessandroamaranto, please update us on how the review is going.
Apologies, my daughter is just born! Back at it next week :)
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 4:46 PM Taher Chegini @.***> wrote:
👋🏼 @mdbartos https://github.com/mdbartos and @alessandroamaranto https://github.com/alessandroamaranto, please update us on how the review is going.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6747#issuecomment-2156062942, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADJOC4KH4EJFN5IWS7H7HMLZGMKM7AVCNFSM6AAAAABHUFXZRGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCNJWGA3DEOJUGI . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
-- Alessandro Amaranto. Postdoctoral research fellow Dept. of Electronics, Information, and Bioengineering Politecnico di Milano, Italy
@WrenRaming, I reached out to @mdbartos via email, and he notified me that he won't be able to review this package in time due to traveling. I will look for a new reviewer.
Hi @LSRathore! Would you like to review this submission to the Journal for Open Source Software? Our reviews are checklist-driven and openly conducted on GitHub over. Because the process is much more iterative and interactive than a traditional paper review, we would ask you to start within the next 2 weeks. Here are reviewer guidelines for reference: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html
Thanks for your consideration.
@cheginit Unfortunately, I will be unable to do so due to time constraints. I wish you luck.
Hi @gutabeshu! Would you like to review this submission to the Journal for Open Source Software? Our reviews are checklist-driven and openly conducted on GitHub over. Because the process is much more iterative and interactive than a traditional paper review, we would ask you to start within the next 2 weeks. Here are reviewer guidelines for reference: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html
Thanks for your consideration.
@gutabeshu Thanks for agreeing to review this submission. This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.
As a reviewer, the first step, as mentioned in the first comment of this issue, is to create a checklist for your review by entering
@editorialbot generate my checklist
as the top of a new comment in this thread.
These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.
The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#6747 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them, instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.
We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please notify me if any of you require some more time. We can also use EditorialBot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.
Please don't hesitate to ping me (@cheginit) if you have any questions/concerns.
my bad, I'll work on it soon
On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 2:31 PM Taher Chegini @.***> wrote:
@alessandroamaranto https://github.com/alessandroamaranto A friendly reminder for this review.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6747#issuecomment-2205966679, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADJOC4NX4BDGDG2LBGNQNITZKPVKHAVCNFSM6AAAAABHUFXZRGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDEMBVHE3DMNRXHE . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
-- Alessandro Amaranto. Postdoctoral research fellow Dept. of Electronics, Information, and Bioengineering Politecnico di Milano, Italy