[PRE REVIEW]: py_SBeLT: A Python software for stochastic sediment transport under rarefied conditions #4091
Comments
|
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post. For a list of things I can do to help you, just type: For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type: |
|
Wordcount for |
|
|
|
PDF failed to compile for issue #4091 with the following error: |
|
Hi @szwiep, I think the empty |
|
@whedon invite @kbarnhart as editor 👋 Hi @kbarnhart, could you edit this one? Note that the paper has a build issue at the moment, but that should be resolved quickly. |
|
@kbarnhart has been invited to edit this submission. |
|
Hi @kyleniemeyer, I added my ORCID to the field. Thanks for letting me know. Hopefully that solves the build issue. |
|
@whedon generate pdf |
|
PDF failed to compile for issue #4091 with the following error: |
|
@szwiep ah, I'm sorry, it was actually the affiliation field for your coauthor that was causing the problem. (Or perhaps both things.) Could you change |
|
@kyleniemeyer done! Field has been updated. |
|
@whedon generate pdf |
|
PDF failed to compile for issue #4091 with the following error: |
|
@szwiep this just won't quite resolve! I notice one issue but miss the others, apparently... The sub-fields under your coauthor's name should not have dashes, since that is used to mark new entries in the - name: Shawn M. Chartrand^[co-first author]
orcid: 0000-0002-9309-1137
affiliation: "1, 2" |
|
@kyleniemeyer Thanks for helping sort this out. I'll update the dashes. One potential problem: would the second affiliation need an |
|
@szwiep no, combining two affiliations within quotes like that is the correct approach. (See the example paper: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#example-paper-and-bibliography) |
|
@kyleniemeyer sorry, I meant in the affiliations section. Looks like we we're missing the index: Just committed those (dashes and index) changes. |
|
@kyleniemeyer I can handle this. I'll go ahead and assign myself. @szwiep I'll be able to start handling this actively in the middle of next week. At that point I'll do a standard pre-review check of the submission, depending on the results of that I may provide some feedback, and then will start to look for reviewers. Please let me know if you have questions at any point either here or at krbarnhart@usgs.gov |
|
@whedon assign @kbarnhart as editor |
|
OK, the editor is @kbarnhart |
|
@whedon generate pdf |
|
@szwiep it built! @kbarnhart thanks! |
|
@kyleniemeyer @kbarnhart thanks for your support getting the pdf build issues resolved! Much appreciated. |
|
@kbarnhart - I am following up on the above request for suggested reviewers. After looking through the JOSS reviewer list, here are some suggestions (I searched for keyword "geomorphology" and started at the bottom of the list and made it halfway):
|
|
@szwiep @smchartrand Thanks for this submission, I think it is a great contribution and I look forward to seeing it through the JOSS review process. I've gone through my standard pre-review evaluation of this submission and I have identified some issues that I think would be beneficial to address before I find reviewers and start review. Most of these comments are directly related to the review criteria and review checklist. These are issues that would come up very quickly during review and so I find that it is best to address them before review starts.
I'm going to mark this submission as paused to give you whatever time you need to address the above comments. Please consider me a resource in addressing these comments and let me know if you have any questions. You can reach me either here or at krbarnhart@usgs.gov |
|
Thanks very much @kbarnhart. Really appreciate this feedback and the proactiveness. @szwiep and I plan to get these addressed in the middle of February and submitted shortly thereafter. Hope this helps for your own schedule juggling and planning. |
|
@smchartrand glad to hear. I look forward to seeing the revisions to the submission. |
|
Quick question @kbarnhart. Your above comment regarding Theory - is it best to add the additional text in the readme or the JOSS paper? Thanks. |
|
I'd recommend adding it to the ReadMe or another page in the documentation (JOSS in flexible in how the documentation is structured). That way the theory is more easily discoverable relative to the code. |
|
Hi @kbarnhart. Just wanted to give you an update. Sarah and I are still working on your suggestions and hope to have things ready soon. Hope you are well and thanks for your patience. |
|
@smchartrand thanks for the update and no problem at all. If you have any questions for me as you work on the suggestions, please let me know. |
|
@kbarnhart thank you very much for your initial feedback and recommendations for the model, and thank you for your patience while we implemented them! The recommendations have all been addressed so we're ready to resume the submission whenever works for you. I've updated the version number of the project to be v1.0.1 to reflect these changes. |
|
@szwiep thanks for that update. I should be able to look more closely at this near the end of this week or early next week. |
|
Thanks @kbarnhart. We look forward to hearing back from you. |
|
@szwiep and @smchartrand thanks for these updates, they are great. I have a couple of very minor comments and I've proposed changes that I think would be beneficial in a pull request. Most of the recommendations are to provide more links to other files in the Readme and to structure the documentation a bit. Feel free to modify any of my recommendations, they are just suggestions. The only thing I didn't include was actual text describing how a user might test an installation. Forgive me if that was somewhere I didn't notice. I will now start looking for reviewers. |
|
@editorialbot set v1.0.1 as version |
|
Done! version is now v1.0.1 |
|
👋 @pfeiffea @tdoane would you be willing to review the submission "py_SBeLT: A Python software for stochastic sediment transport under rarefied conditions" for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html. I think your backgrounds in sediment transport would make you valuable reviewers of this contribution. If you are interested and able, please read our conflict of interest before agreeing. We would ask for reviews within 4–6 weeks, but that generally means starting the process sooner since it tends to be iterative between the reviewers and author(s). You can read more about the process here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html Thanks for your consideration and let me know if you have any questions (here or at krbarnhart@usgs.gov) |
|
Hi @kbarnhart. I'd be happy to. I should be able to complete a first review by ~April 21st. |
|
HI @kbarnhart! I'm happy to review as well. The timeline works for me. Thanks! |
|
@editorialbot add @pfeiffea to reviewers |
|
@pfeiffea added to the reviewers list! |
|
@editorialbot add @tdoane to reviewers |
|
@tdoane added to the reviewers list! |
|
@editorialbot start review |
|
OK, I've started the review over in #4282. |
Submitting author: @szwiep (Sarah Zwiep)
Repository: https://github.com/szwiep/py_SBeLT
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.0.1
Editor: @kbarnhart
Reviewers: @pfeiffea, @tdoane
Managing EiC: Kyle Niemeyer
Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.
Status
Status badge code:
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @szwiep. Currently, there isn't an JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
The author's suggestion for the handling editor is @kbarnhart.
@szwiep if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).
Editor instructions
The JOSS submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: