[REVIEW]: SWAMPE: A Shallow-Water Atmospheric Model in Python for Exoplanets #4872

editorialbot · 2022-10-21T18:13:35Z

Submitting author: @kathlandgren (Ekaterina Landgren)
Repository: https://github.com/kathlandgren/SWAMPE
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @dfm
Reviewers: @mark-hammond, @imalsky
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7402247

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ef9e88a2db11cb4c962b8a1925f94306"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ef9e88a2db11cb4c962b8a1925f94306/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ef9e88a2db11cb4c962b8a1925f94306/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ef9e88a2db11cb4c962b8a1925f94306)

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

@mark-hammond & @imalsky, 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 @dfm 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 @mark-hammond

📝 Checklist for @imalsky

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

editorialbot · 2022-10-21T18:13:37Z

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

dfm · 2022-10-21T18:15:05Z

@mark-hammond, @imalsky — This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on. Thanks again for agreeing to participate!

👉 Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above, and generate your checklists by commenting @editorialbot generate my checklist on this issue ASAP. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also 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#4872 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 the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks but please try to make a start ahead of this as JOSS reviews are by their nature iterative and any early feedback you may be able to provide to the author will be very helpful in meeting this schedule.

editorialbot · 2022-10-21T18:17:10Z

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

mark-hammond · 2022-10-24T07:55:11Z

Review checklist for @mark-hammond

Conflict of interest

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

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/kathlandgren/SWAMPE?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@kathlandgren) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
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.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
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

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
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

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
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

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
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?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
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?

dfm · 2022-10-31T14:40:04Z

@imalsky — A reminder to keep this on your radar. Please generate your checklist and start taking a look as soon as you can. Thanks!!

imalsky · 2022-11-01T00:25:40Z

Review checklist for @imalsky

Conflict of interest

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

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/kathlandgren/SWAMPE?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@kathlandgren) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
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.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
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

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
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

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
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

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
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?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
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?

imalsky · 2022-11-01T00:38:18Z

Thanks! I opened a review. My apologies if I get any of the process wrong, this is my first JOSS review.

…

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:40 AM Dan Foreman-Mackey ***@***.***> wrote: @imalsky <https://github.com/imalsky> — A reminder to keep this on your radar. Please generate your checklist and start taking a look as soon as you can. Thanks!! — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#4872 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALEHJJJO2AJQKLC6QEJIPRLWF7K5BANCNFSM6AAAAAARLMWYAU> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

imalsky · 2022-11-01T00:52:54Z

@dfm, is it recommended that I also make any suggestion for improvements/questions in the paper or code, or simply check the above guideline checklist?

dfm · 2022-11-01T01:11:13Z

@imalsky — absolutely! The checklist is our priority, but any other suggestions would be excellent. I recommend opening any comments as issues on the repo.

imalsky · 2022-11-22T23:50:40Z

Everything looks good to me! I had an issue open on the repo that I've now closed also

mark-hammond · 2022-11-30T11:26:07Z

Thank you for addressing the comments, I have ticked all the boxes now and closed the issue thread on the other repo. This is a great piece of code, thank you for sharing it in this way!

dfm · 2022-12-01T11:20:42Z

Awesome!! Thanks @mark-hammond and @imalsky for your constructive reviews! I really appreciate all the time that you volunteered to this process.

@kathlandgren — I have a couple of final edits to do then I'll have some quick tasks for you before we publish. I'm totally swamped today, but I'll get to this before the end of the week. Thanks for your patience!

imalsky · 2022-12-02T02:13:51Z

Thanks for inviting me! It was my pleasure

…

On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 3:20 AM Dan Foreman-Mackey ***@***.***> wrote: Awesome!! Thanks @mark-hammond <https://github.com/mark-hammond> and @imalsky <https://github.com/imalsky> for your constructive reviews! I really appreciate all the time that you volunteered to this process. @kathlandgren <https://github.com/kathlandgren> — I have a couple of final edits to do then I'll have some quick tasks for you before we publish. I'm totally swamped today, but I'll get to this before the end of the week. Thanks for your patience! — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#4872 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALEHJJLZKCOYPZOV4E5VKODWLCCZJANCNFSM6AAAAAARLMWYAU> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

dfm · 2022-12-03T20:52:27Z

@editorialbot check references

dfm · 2022-12-03T20:52:37Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2022-12-03T20:54:44Z

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

editorialbot · 2022-12-03T20:55:34Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.3847/2041-8213/aabcc8 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/887 is OK
- 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/9 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201321132 is OK
- 10.1086/506312 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stt1509 is OK
- 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114065 is OK
- 10.1086/375015 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/71 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/134 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023068 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1029/96jc02776 may be a valid DOI for title: Hydrostatic, quasi-hydrostatic, and nonhydrostatic ocean modeling
- 10.3847/0004-637x/829/1/52 may be a valid DOI for title: The impact of non-uniform thermal structure on the interpretation of exoplanet emission spectra
- 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7a06 may be a valid DOI for title: Resolving orbital and climate keys of earth and extraterrestrial environments with dynamics (ROCKE-3D) 1.0: a general circulation model for simulating the climates of rocky planets
- 10.1016/j.ocemod.2011.02.013 may be a valid DOI for title: What processes drive the ocean heat transport?
- 10.1086/523957 may be a valid DOI for title: Hydrodynamic simulations of unevenly irradiated Jovian planets
- 10.1175/1520-0493(2001)129<2346:svfswe>2.0.co;2 may be a valid DOI for title: Spectral viscosity for shallow water equations in spherical geometry
- 10.1029/2019ms002015 may be a valid DOI for title: The GFDL Earth System Model version 4.1 (GFDL-ESM 4.1): Overall coupled model description and simulation characteristics

INVALID DOIs

- None

dfm · 2022-12-03T21:11:12Z

@kathlandgren — I've opened a PR with some minor edits to the paper. After merging or responding to that, here are the final steps that I'll need from you:

Take one last read through the manuscript to make sure that you're happy with it (it's harder to make changes later!), especially the author names and affiliations. I've taken a pass and it looks good to me!
Increment the version number of the software and report that version number back here.
Create an archived release of that version of the software (using Zenodo or something similar). Please make sure that the metadata (title and author list) exactly match the paper. Then report the DOI of the release back to this thread.

kathlandgren · 2022-12-05T21:56:46Z

@dfm Thank you for the edits and for your help!

Version is: v1.0.0

DOI of the release is: 10.5281/zenodo.7402247

dfm · 2022-12-06T11:40:15Z

@editorialbot set v1.0.0 as version

editorialbot · 2022-12-06T11:40:17Z

Done! version is now v1.0.0

dfm · 2022-12-06T11:40:27Z

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7402247 as archive

editorialbot · 2022-12-06T11:40:29Z

Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7402247

dfm · 2022-12-06T11:41:11Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

@kathlandgren — Thanks! Can you take one last look through the proofs 👇 and make sure that you're happy?

editorialbot · 2022-12-06T11:43:13Z

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

kathlandgren · 2022-12-06T18:12:43Z

The proofs look great to me!

dfm · 2022-12-08T14:03:24Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2022-12-08T14:03:26Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2022-12-08T14:05:04Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1029/96jc02776 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aabcc8 is OK
- 10.3847/0004-637x/829/1/52 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/887 is OK
- 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/9 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201321132 is OK
- 10.1086/506312 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stt1509 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7a06 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ocemod.2011.02.013 is OK
- 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114065 is OK
- 10.1086/375015 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/71 is OK
- 10.1086/523957 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/134 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0493(2001)129<2346:svfswe>2.0.co;2 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023068 is OK
- 10.1029/2019ms002015 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2022-12-08T14:06:25Z

👋 @openjournals/aass-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#3781, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

dfm · 2022-12-08T14:07:48Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2022-12-08T14:07:49Z

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2022-12-08T14:10:27Z

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

editorialbot · 2022-12-08T14:10:28Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2022-12-08T14:10:28Z

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.04872 joss-papers#3782
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04872
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

dfm · 2022-12-08T14:11:10Z

@mark-hammond, @imalsky — Many thanks for your reviews here! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you!!

@kathlandgren — Your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS! ⚡🚀💥

editorialbot · 2022-12-08T14:11:26Z

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04872/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04872)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04872">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04872/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04872/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04872

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

editorialbot added Python review TeX Track: 1 (AASS) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Space Sciences labels Oct 21, 2022

editorialbot assigned dfm Oct 21, 2022

editorialbot mentioned this issue Oct 21, 2022

[PRE REVIEW]: SWAMPE: A Shallow-Water Atmospheric Model in Python for Exoplanets #4779

Closed

dfm mentioned this issue Oct 26, 2022

Review comments kathlandgren/SWAMPE#4

Closed

dfm mentioned this issue Dec 3, 2022

Edits for JOSS submission kathlandgren/SWAMPE#7

Merged

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Dec 8, 2022

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Dec 8, 2022

dfm closed this as completed Dec 8, 2022

editorialbot mentioned this issue Jul 18, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: LorenzCycleToolkit: A Comprehensive Python Tool for Analyzing Atmospheric Energy Cycles #7007

Closed

editorialbot mentioned this issue Aug 9, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: GASTLI: A Python package for coupled interior–atmosphere modelling of volatile-rich planets #7096

Closed

editorialbot mentioned this issue Sep 21, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: AGNI: A radiative-convective model for lava planet atmospheres #7259

Open

editorialbot mentioned this issue Oct 2, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: CycloPhaser: A Python Package for Detecting Extratropical Cyclone Life Cycles #7280

Closed

[REVIEW]: SWAMPE: A Shallow-Water Atmospheric Model in Python for Exoplanets #4872

[REVIEW]: SWAMPE: A Shallow-Water Atmospheric Model in Python for Exoplanets #4872

Comments

editorialbot commented Oct 21, 2022 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Oct 21, 2022

dfm commented Oct 21, 2022

editorialbot commented Oct 21, 2022

mark-hammond commented Oct 24, 2022 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @mark-hammond

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

dfm commented Oct 31, 2022

imalsky commented Nov 1, 2022 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @imalsky

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

imalsky commented Nov 1, 2022 via email

imalsky commented Nov 1, 2022

dfm commented Nov 1, 2022

imalsky commented Nov 22, 2022

mark-hammond commented Nov 30, 2022

dfm commented Dec 1, 2022

imalsky commented Dec 2, 2022 via email

dfm commented Dec 3, 2022

dfm commented Dec 3, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 3, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 3, 2022

dfm commented Dec 3, 2022

kathlandgren commented Dec 5, 2022

dfm commented Dec 6, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 6, 2022

dfm commented Dec 6, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 6, 2022

dfm commented Dec 6, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 6, 2022

kathlandgren commented Dec 6, 2022

dfm commented Dec 8, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 8, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 8, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 8, 2022

dfm commented Dec 8, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 8, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 8, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 8, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 8, 2022

dfm commented Dec 8, 2022

editorialbot commented Dec 8, 2022

editorialbot commented Oct 21, 2022 •

edited

Loading

mark-hammond commented Oct 24, 2022 •

edited

Loading

imalsky commented Nov 1, 2022 •

edited

Loading