[PRE REVIEW]: FlowSieve: A Coarse-Graining Utility for Geophysical Flows on the Sphere

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @bastorer (Benjamin Storer)
Repository: https://github.com/husseinaluie/FlowSieve
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v3.0.0
Editor: @kthyng
Reviewers: @NoraLoose, @kris-rowe
Managing EiC: Kevin M. Moerman

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/62a2bfe9452051063e099fa9eebbab77"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/62a2bfe9452051063e099fa9eebbab77/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/62a2bfe9452051063e099fa9eebbab77/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/62a2bfe9452051063e099fa9eebbab77)

Author instructions

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

@bastorer 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]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1175/JPO-D-17-0100.1 is OK
- 10.1007/s13137-019-0123-9 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=2.44 s (105.3 files/s, 165528.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C++                            174          39318          96505         204359
C/C++ Header                    23           9112          29337          20386
Python                          28            655            303           1680
Markdown                        16            396              0           1112
make                             6            106            103            230
Bourne Shell                     8             46             76            130
TeX                              1              3              0             25
YAML                             1              1              4             19
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           257          49637         126328         227941
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 363

[editorialbot]

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

[kthyng]

Hi @bastorer! Thanks for your submission. Your references aren't coming through, in line or at the end of your paper. Can you take a look and try to fix this?

[kthyng]

@kbarnhart Is this in your expertise area? Might be like that last one I asked you about though and might not be a good fit.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @kbarnhart as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[kbarnhart]

@kthyng yeah... out of area of expertise. Sorry!

[bastorer]

Hi @bastorer! Thanks for your submission. Your references aren't coming through, in line or at the end of your paper. Can you take a look and try to fix this?

Hi @kthyng Thanks for catching that! I've updated the files and yaml action script and the compiled paper includes the references now :-)

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1175/JPO-D-17-0100.1 is OK
- 10.1007/s13137-019-0123-9 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[danielskatz]

👋 @bastorer - @kthyng will begin editing this and get the process started, but then likely will go on leave before the process finishes - I'll take over at that point.

[danielskatz]

@whedon assign @kthyng as editor

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

My name is now @editorialbot

[danielskatz]

👋 @bastorer & @kthyng - the paper seems a bit too short to me...

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot assign @kthyng as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @kthyng is now the editor

[kthyng]

@bastorer Can you take a look at this list of reviewer volunteers and suggest people that you think would fit this submission? Please don't use @, just list their handles. https://bit.ly/joss-reviewers

Also as implied by @danielskatz, can you take a look at the paper requirements and make sure you've covered all the necessary information? This will come up during review if it isn't handled now, so might as well deal with it now if possible.

[bastorer]

Hi @kthyng

NoraLoose would be a good fit topic-wise ( they use similar methodologies in their work ). Comparing domains/topics, ali-ramadhan and ashwinvis look like they could also be a good fit.

I think I covered the paper requirements, but I agree that the paper is rather short. Is it okay if I update the paper tomorrow and send you a reply once that's done before you send it off to reviewers?

Thanks!

[kthyng]

@bastorer Probably the review process won't get underway so quickly, so please go ahead and update as you suggest. And note that the paper indeed isn't meant to be very long — just long enough to cover what is necessary. I'll reach out to potential reviewers in the meantime.

[kthyng]

Hi @ali-ramadhan and @NoraLoose! Are you interested in reviewing this JOSS submission? 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!

[NoraLoose]

Hi @kthyng! Yes, I would be happy to review this submission. Thanks!

Edit: I should add that I am not the greatest expert in C++, but I am familiar with the topic since we have a python package that has a similar goal. In any case, I am interested in giving this a go!

[kthyng]

@NoraLoose Sounds good. My goal is to have the other reviewer have more experience with C++ to help give balance to the feedback. I'll add you as a reviewer now and see if we can get a second in line before starting the review. Thanks!

[kthyng]

@editorialbot assign @NoraLoose 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 @NoraLoose as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@NoraLoose added to the reviewers list!

[kthyng]

Hi @kris-rowe! Are you interested in reviewing this JOSS submission? 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

Your skills look like a good complement to the other reviewer and for the submission. Thanks for your consideration!

[kris-rowe]

Hi @kris-rowe! Are you interested in reviewing this JOSS submission? 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

Your skills look like a good complement to the other reviewer and for the submission. Thanks for your consideration!

I can be reviewer on this. Sounds like an interesting paper. Happy to help.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot add @kris-rowe as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@kris-rowe added to the reviewers list!

[kthyng]

Thanks @NoraLoose and @kris-rowe for agreeing to be reviewers! I will start the review now. A new github issue will open that you will be directed to, and that is where the review itself is coordinated.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #4277.