[PRE REVIEW]: xeofs: Comprehensive EOF analysis in Python with xarray

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @nicrie (Niclas Rieger)
Repository: https://github.com/nicrie/xeofs
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-submission
Version: v.1.2.2
Editor: @samhforbes
Reviewers: @DamienIrving, @malmans2
Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4f50349ee1777b8a61761183047b1180"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4f50349ee1777b8a61761183047b1180/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4f50349ee1777b8a61761183047b1180/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4f50349ee1777b8a61761183047b1180)

Author instructions

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

@nicrie if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

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=0.19 s (957.5 files/s, 211419.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          92           2861           4129          10126
HTML                             1           1244              2           6337
Markdown                         6            571              0            738
reStructuredText                52           2817           5787            641
TeX                              1             40              0            393
YAML                             8             36             29            162
Jupyter Notebook                15              0           3347            109
TOML                             1              7              0             55
CSS                              1              6              1             29
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           179           7594          13303          18625
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 805

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5334/jors.122 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.148 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-86940-2_10 is OK
- 10.1002/joc.1499 is OK
- 10.1109/TGRS.2020.2969813 is OK
- 10.2307/2333955 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0442(1995)008<2631:OROSPD>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0664.1 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0244.1 is OK
- 10.1080/13658816.2011.554838 is OK
- 10.1016/0167-2789(86)90031-X is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0493(1982)110<0481:EOEEOF>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0450(1984)023<1660:CPCATA>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0493(1983)111<0756:IOTMAP>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI3879.1 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0469(2001)058<1341:OPPITV>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1007/BF02289233 is OK
- 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1964.tb00244.x is OK
- 10.1137/090771806 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1175/jcli-d-20-0266.1 may be a valid DOI for title: Rotated spectral principal component analysis (rsPCA) for identifying dynamical modes of variability in climate systems
- 10.1007/978-3-030-67073-3 may be a valid DOI for title: Patterns Identification and Data Mining in Weather and Climate
- 10.1016/0304-4076(76)90010-5 may be a valid DOI for title: Canonical ridge and econometrics of joint production
- 10.1175/1520-0442(1992)005<0541:aiomff>2.0.co;2 may be a valid DOI for title: An intercomparison of methods for finding coupled patterns in climate data
- 10.1175/1520-0493(1981)109<0587:bvisto>2.0.co;2 may be a valid DOI for title: Biennial variations in surface temperature over the United States as revealed by singular decomposition

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

spatial-efd: A spatial-aware implementation of elliptical Fourier analysis
Submitting author: @sgrieve
Handling editor: @cMadan (Active)
Reviewers: @jsta
Similarity score: 0.8090

EFAtools: An R package with fast and flexible implementations of exploratory factor analysis tools
Submitting author: @mdsteiner
Handling editor: @fboehm (Active)
Reviewers: @jacobsoj, @chainsawriot
Similarity score: 0.8044

flux-data-qaqc: A Python Package for Energy Balance Closure and Post-Processing of Eddy Flux Data
Submitting author: @JohnVolk
Handling editor: @pdebuyl (Active)
Reviewers: @ashwinvis, @dgketchum
Similarity score: 0.8043

OceanSpy: A Python package to facilitate ocean model data analysis and visualization
Submitting author: @malmans2
Handling editor: @kthyng (Active)
Reviewers: @tomchor, @platipodium
Similarity score: 0.8018

eigentools: A Python package for studying differential eigenvalue problems with an emphasis on robustness
Submitting author: @jsoishi
Handling editor: @dpsanders (Retired)
Reviewers: @ketch, @caropen
Similarity score: 0.7992

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[kthyng]

Hi @nicrie and thanks for your submission. I saw the note with your submission. Was there a software review as part of the publication below?
N. Rieger, Á. Corral, E. Olmedo, and A. Turiel, “Lagged Teleconnections of Climate Variables Identified via Complex Rotated Maximum Covariance Analysis,” Journal of Climate, vol. 34, no. 24, pp. 9861–9878, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0244.1.

[nicrie]

Hey @kthyng, no there wasn't. We just included it with the paper so others could check our work if they wanted to. It wasn't a must-have for the journal, just our way of being open about our research.

[nicrie]

Looking at the list of available reviewers, I believe malmans2 & miniufo would be a great fit.

[kthyng]

@nicrie Ok great. Can you list 3 more potential reviewers, and also address the potentially missing DOIs listed above.

[kthyng]

Hi @matthewfeickert! We don't usually overlap but I'm hoping you'd be a good fit for editing this submission from the stats/math side of things. What do you think?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @matthewfeickert as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[nicrie]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

spatial-efd: A spatial-aware implementation of elliptical Fourier analysis
Submitting author: @sgrieve
Handling editor: @cMadan (Active)
Reviewers: @jsta
Similarity score: 0.8183

flux-data-qaqc: A Python Package for Energy Balance Closure and Post-Processing of Eddy Flux Data
Submitting author: @JohnVolk
Handling editor: @pdebuyl (Active)
Reviewers: @ashwinvis, @dgketchum
Similarity score: 0.8144

EFAtools: An R package with fast and flexible implementations of exploratory factor analysis tools
Submitting author: @mdsteiner
Handling editor: @fboehm (Active)
Reviewers: @jacobsoj, @chainsawriot
Similarity score: 0.8134

eigentools: A Python package for studying differential eigenvalue problems with an emphasis on robustness
Submitting author: @jsoishi
Handling editor: @dpsanders (Retired)
Reviewers: @ketch, @caropen
Similarity score: 0.8097

exoplanet: Gradient-based probabilistic inference for exoplanet data & other astronomical time series
Submitting author: @dfm
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @grburgess, @benjaminpope
Similarity score: 0.8085

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[editorialbot]

📄 Preprint file created: Find it here in the Artifacts list 📄

[nicrie]

Here's an updated list of potential reviewers @kthyng :

• malmans2
• miniufo
• syedhamidali
• jimmielin
• eviatarbach

[nicrie]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @nicrie, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

[nicrie]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5334/jors.122 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.148 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-86940-2_10 is OK
- 10.1002/joc.1499 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0266.1 is OK
- 10.1109/TGRS.2020.2969813 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-67073-3 is OK
- 10.2307/2333955 is OK
- 10.1016/0304-4076(76)90010-5 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0442(1992)005<0541:AIOMFF>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0442(1995)008<2631:OROSPD>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0664.1 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0244.1 is OK
- 10.1080/13658816.2011.554838 is OK
- 10.1016/0167-2789(86)90031-X is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0493(1982)110<0481:EOEEOF>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0450(1984)023<1660:CPCATA>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0493(1981)109<0587:BVISTO>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0493(1983)111<0756:IOTMAP>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI3879.1 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0469(2001)058<1341:OPPITV>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1007/BF02289233 is OK
- 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1964.tb00244.x is OK
- 10.1137/090771806 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[matthewfeickert]

We don't usually overlap but I'm hoping you'd be a good fit for editing this submission from the stats/math side of things. What do you think?

Sorry @kthyng I'm just seeing this now (I'm behind on email and GitHub notifications while applying for faculty positions). Hm, this is certainly outside of my wheelhouse subject wise, so if there is another topical editor that is a better fit on the subject matter I would go with them, but if not then I could take this on.

[kthyng]

Ok thanks @matthewfeickert I'll search around.

[kthyng]

Hi @samhforbes! I am looking for an editor in the signal processing/time series analysis sort of area. Are you up for editing this submission?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @samhforbes as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[samhforbes]

Hi @kthyng I'm happy to take a run at this, as long as I can find a climate expert to review (and recommendations would be welcome here!)

[samhforbes]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @samhforbes is now the editor

[nicrie]

Thank you for your time, @samhforbes ! I've checked the list of potential reviewers for climate/atmosphere experts:

• rabernat
• kgoebber
• DamienIrving
• arbennett

For completeness, I will also list again the potential reviewers that I already mentioned above, who also seem to have a lot of experience in the relevant areas.

• malmans2
• miniufo
• syedhamidali
• jimmielin
• eviatarbach

[samhforbes]

That's really helpful, thanks @nicrie

[samhforbes]

@DamienIrving @malmans2 @eviatarbach would any of you be willing to review this submission 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

[DamienIrving]

I'd be happy to review this submission 😄

[malmans2]

Hi there, I'm also happy to review this!

[samhforbes]

Fantastic, thank you both. I'll add you both as reviewers then start the review in another thread.

[samhforbes]

@editorialbot add @DamienIrving as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@DamienIrving added to the reviewers list!

[samhforbes]

@editorialbot add @malmans2 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@malmans2 added to the reviewers list!

[samhforbes]

@editorialbot begin review

[editorialbot]

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

@editorialbot commands

[samhforbes]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @samhforbes, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Add to this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot add @username as reviewer

# Remove from this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot remove @username from reviewers

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Assign a user as the editor of this submission
@editorialbot assign @username as editor

# Remove the editor assigned to this submission
@editorialbot remove editor

# Remind an author, a reviewer or the editor to return to a review after a 
# certain period of time (supported units days and weeks)
@editorialbot remind @reviewer in 2 weeks

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for version
@editorialbot set v1.0.0 as version

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Set a value for repository
@editorialbot set https://github.com/organization/repo as repository

# Set a value for the archive DOI
@editorialbot set set 10.5281/zenodo.6861996 as archive

# Mention the EiCs for the correct track
@editorialbot ping track-eic

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Recommends the submission for acceptance
@editorialbot recommend-accept

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Flag submission with questionable scope
@editorialbot query scope

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

# Creates a post-review checklist with editor and authors tasks
@editorialbot create post-review checklist

# Open the review issue
@editorialbot start review

[samhforbes]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6060.