[PRE REVIEW]: icepyx: querying, obtaining, analyzing, and manipulating ICESat-2 datasets

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @JessicaS11 (Jessica Scheick)
Repository: https://github.com/icesat2py/icepyx
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss
Version: v0.6.3
Editor: @kthyng
Reviewers: @dimejimudele, @VaasuDevanS
Managing EiC: Kevin M. Moerman

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a355344b24ffa5fda7a04a5067e8be1f"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a355344b24ffa5fda7a04a5067e8be1f/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a355344b24ffa5fda7a04a5067e8be1f/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a355344b24ffa5fda7a04a5067e8be1f)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @JessicaS11. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@JessicaS11 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 @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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.15 s (749.5 files/s, 150851.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVG                              5              0            120           5951
Python                          37           1356           2571           5293
reStructuredText                41            727            417           1074
Jupyter Notebook                 7              0           3305            422
YAML                            10             34             48            215
Markdown                         3             54              0            192
TeX                              1             12              3            138
XML                              1              0              0             74
CSS                              1             18              2             53
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
INI                              1              0              0              6
JSON                             1              0              0              1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           110           2213           6474          13454
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 860

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.6462479 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3966463 is OK
- 10.1002/essoar.10501423.1 is OK
- 10.1029/2021GL095051 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-87013-3_13 is OK
- 10.5194/tc-14-3629-2020 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rse.2016.12.029 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1002/essoar.10511316.1 may be a valid DOI for title: Collaborative Computational Resource Development around ICESat-2 Data: the icepyx Community and Library

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

[JessicaS11]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

[JessicaS11]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[arfon]

@JessicaS11 - thanks for your submission to JOSS. We're currently managing a large backlog of submissions and the editor most appropriate for your area is already rather busy.

For now, we will need to waitlist this paper and process it as the queue reduces. Thanks for your patience!

[kthyng]

Hi @JessicaS11 and thanks for your submission! I'll take this on as editor.

Could you please look through our list of volunteer reviewers and suggest people by github handle (without the "@") that look relevant? Also please feel free to suggest from outside this list.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @kthyng is now the editor

[JessicaS11]

Thanks @kthyng! We're in the process of issuing a new release (v0.6.4), so it would be super if we could have that be the version that's evaluated. I anticipate it will be available early next week.

I chose some potential reviewers from the list based on their listed expertise: amirhessam88; dimejimudele; idoby; JacksonMaxfield; judafe; mnbhk; vaasuDevans; xtruan.

[kthyng]

Hi @dimejimudele and @VaasuDevanS! Are you interested in reviewing this submission to JOSS? JOSS reviews are conducted in a github issue on this repo, and use a checklist. We ask you to open issues on the software repository to bring up specific comments/questions and stay organized. We like reviews to be done within 4–6 weeks but because this is an iterative process usually between the authors and reviewers, it's best to start earlier than that. Thank for your consideration!

[dimejimudele]

@kthyng I am sure interested and will be taking this opportunity. Since @JessicaS11 mentioned that they will be issuing a new release next week, I could wait to start evaluating by then.

Also, the timeline you have given is definitely workable.

[kthyng]

Hi @dimejimudele and awesome! We need to get two reviewers in place to start the review issue itself, where the review will occur, but yes also might as well start your review with the newest release version, at that time.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot assign @dimejimudele as reviewer

[editorialbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

[kthyng]

@editorialbot add @dimejimudele as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@dimejimudele added to the reviewers list!

[VaasuDevanS]

@kthyng Thanks very much for the opportunity. I am interested in reviewing this submission.

[kthyng]

@VaasuDevanS excellent! I will add you as a reviewer, start the review issue since we now have two reviewers, and then I'll add a note in the new review issue.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot add @VaasuDevanS as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@VaasuDevanS added to the reviewers list!

[kthyng]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #4912.