[PRE REVIEW]: ndbc-api: Accelerating oceanography and climate science research with Python

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @CDJellen (Chris Jellen)
Repository: http://github.com/cdjellen/ndbc-api
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): user/cjellen/joss-paper-submission
Version: v2024.08.31.1
Editor: @cheginit
Reviewers: @rwegener2, @ks905383
Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7650fcdcf5309f37067b9f271f12e438"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7650fcdcf5309f37067b9f271f12e438/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7650fcdcf5309f37067b9f271f12e438/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7650fcdcf5309f37067b9f271f12e438)

Author instructions

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

@CDJellen 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 1.90  T=1.33 s (135.4 files/s, 689797.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAML                            39         374062             43         504544
Python                         135           1337            518           4983
Markdown                         2             69              0            214
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0          30859             61
TeX                              1              3              0             30
TOML                             1              3              0             27
INI                              1              0              0              4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           180         375474          31420         509863
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    95	CDJellen
    39	cdjellen
    16	Chris Jellen
     1	abdu558

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- None

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: NDBC Web Data Guide
- No DOI given, and none found for title: NDBC Active Stations
- No DOI given, and none found for title: NetCDF4 Python Library

❌ MISSING DOIs

- 10.25080/majora-92bf1922-00a may be a valid DOI for title: Data Structures for Statistical Computing in Pytho...

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 600

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

RESOURCECODE: A Python package for statistical analysis of sea-state hindcast data
Submitting author: @NRaillard
Handling editor: @marcosvital (Active)
Reviewers: @krober10nd, @platipodium, @malmans2
Similarity score: 0.7366

DAPPER: Data Assimilation with Python: a Package for Experimental Research
Submitting author: @patnr
Handling editor: @Fei-Tao (Active)
Reviewers: @sara-02, @Shreyas911
Similarity score: 0.7180

NCDatasets.jl: a Julia package for manipulating netCDF data sets
Submitting author: @Alexander-Barth
Handling editor: @majensen (Active)
Reviewers: @lanari, @boriskaus
Similarity score: 0.7101

ocean_data_tools: A MATLAB toolbox for interacting with bulk freely-available oceanographic data
Submitting author: @lnferris
Handling editor: @kthyng (Active)
Reviewers: @kakearney, @castelao
Similarity score: 0.7035

ncompare: A Python package for comparing netCDF structures
Submitting author: @dkauf42
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @cmtso, @cmarmo
Similarity score: 0.7029

⚠️ 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.

[kthyng]

Hi @CDJellen and thanks for your submission! I am looking for some specific items to make sure your submission fits our requirements at a high level (not at the more detailed review level) before moving on to finding an editor or putting this on our waitlist if no relevant editors are available. I'll comment over time as I have a chance to go through them:

• OSI-approved license
• Installation instructions
• Documentation exists at all
• Tests of some sort
• Check paper (make sure compiles, read through, check for length 250-1000 words)
• Substantial scholarly effort
• Clear research application

In the meantime, please take a look at the comments above ⬆️ from the editorialbot to address any DOI, license, or paper issues if you're able (there may not be any), or suggest reviewers. For reviewers, please suggest 5 reviewers from the database listed above or your own (non-conflicted) extended network. Their github handles are most useful to receive but please don't use "@" to reference them since it will prematurely ping them.

[CDJellen]

Thank you for taking the time to review the submission; I've reviewed the automated messages and updated one DOI. If there are any additional items that you would like me to edit or alter, I will try to have the changes checked in promptly.

In terms of reviewers, I believe the five aliases below best map to the package and its application:

• yueyanglu
• callumrollo
• einaraz
• MaceKuailv
• malmans2

Thank you again and have an excellent rest of your day!

[kthyng]

@CDJellen the references in your paper aren't working correctly. Check that you are following the syntax exactly from https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/paper.html#joss-paper-format

We have a backlog of submissions so I will add this to our waitlist. Thanks for your patience.

[CDJellen]

Thank you @kthyng , I believe I've fixed the error and re-tested through Docker. The rendered version is below.
paper.pdf

[kthyng]

@cheginit Could you edit this submission?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @cheginit as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[cheginit]

@kthyng Yes, I can edit this

[cheginit]

@editorialbot assign @cheginit as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @cheginit is now the editor

[cheginit]

👋🏼 @callumrollo and @castelao, Would you like to review this submission to the Journal for Open Source Software? Our reviews are checklist-driven and openly conducted on GitHub over a timeline of 4–6 weeks. Because the process is much more iterative and interactive than a traditional paper review, we would ask you to start within the next 2 weeks. Here are reviewer guidelines for reference: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Thanks for your consideration.

[cheginit]

👋🏼 @fernando-aristizabal and @aaraney, Would you like to review this submission to the Journal for Open Source Software? Our reviews are checklist-driven and openly conducted on GitHub over a timeline of 4–6 weeks. Because the process is much more iterative and interactive than a traditional paper review, we would ask you to start within the next 2 weeks. Here are reviewer guidelines for reference: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Thanks for your consideration.

[fernando-aristizabal]

Hi @cheginit,
I'm sorry, but I have a busy schedule for the next few weeks and won't be able to give this submission a proper review. It is an interesting project, and I am open to supporting similar reviews in the future. Perhaps @jarq6c would be interested in this, given his work with hydrotools?

[cheginit]

@fernando-aristizabal Thanks for your quick response, letting me know about your availability, and suggesting a potential reviewer! Appreciate it.

@jarq6c Would you like to review this submission to the Journal for Open Source Software? Our reviews are checklist-driven and openly conducted on GitHub over a timeline of 4–6 weeks. Because the process is much more iterative and interactive than a traditional paper review, we would ask you to start within the next 2 weeks. Here are reviewer guidelines for reference: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Thanks for your consideration.

[cheginit]

👋🏼 @ks905383 and @SarthakJariwala, Would you like to review this submission to the Journal for Open Source Software? Our reviews are checklist-driven and openly conducted on GitHub over a timeline of 4–6 weeks. Because the process is much more iterative and interactive than a traditional paper review, we would ask you to start within the next 2 weeks. Here are reviewer guidelines for reference: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Thanks for your consideration.

[ks905383]

Sure! Happy to review this.

[jarq6c]

@fernando-aristizabal Thanks for your quick response, letting me know about your availability, and suggesting a potential reviewer! Appreciate it.

@jarq6c Would you like to review this submission to the Journal for Open Source Software? Our reviews are checklist-driven and openly conducted on GitHub over a timeline of 4–6 weeks. Because the process is much more iterative and interactive than a traditional paper review, we would ask you to start within the next 2 weeks. Here are reviewer guidelines for reference: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Thanks for your consideration.

Sorry, I don't think I'm qualified to review this package. It looks like the review guidelines are mainly software focused. I'm not a software developer and my experience is limited to reviewing traditional journal articles in the hydrologic science domain. Best of luck!

[cheginit]

@ks905383 Awesome! Thanks for agreeing to review this submission. I will open a new issue with instructions to start the review as soon as I find another reviewer.

[cheginit]

@jarq6c Thank you for your response. I want to reassure you that being a software developer isn't required for JOSS reviews. As a scientist who uses and develops code in hydrologic research, your expertise is valuable.

We seek reviewers who can assess both scientific merit and practical application. Your experience with traditional journal reviews and domain knowledge makes you well-suited to evaluate JOSS submissions in your field. If you're willing to reconsider, we'd appreciate your contribution. If not, we understand. Please let me know if you have any questions.

[cheginit]

👋🏼 @jhamman and @malmans2, Would you like to review this submission to the Journal for Open Source Software? Our reviews are checklist-driven and openly conducted on GitHub over a timeline of 4–6 weeks. Because the process is much more iterative and interactive than a traditional paper review, we would ask you to start within the next 2 weeks. Here are reviewer guidelines for reference: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Thanks for your consideration.

[jhamman]

I'm not available to do reviews at the moment. Thanks for asking though!

[malmans2]

Hi there,

I need to pass on this one, as I accepted another review yesterday (#7180).

[cheginit]

@jhamman and @malmans2, thank you both for your quick responses and letting me know about your availability.

[cheginit]

👋🏼 @rwegener2 and @castelao, Would you like to review this submission to the Journal for Open Source Software? Our reviews are checklist-driven and openly conducted on GitHub over a timeline of 4–6 weeks. Because the process is much more iterative and interactive than a traditional paper review, we would ask you to start within the next 2 weeks. Here are reviewer guidelines for reference: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Thanks for your consideration.

[rwegener2]

Sure, @cheginit. I'd be happy to review.

[cheginit]

@rwegener2 Awesome, thanks for your prompt reply and agreeing to review this submission.

[cheginit]

@editorialbot add @rwegener2 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@rwegener2 added to the reviewers list!

[cheginit]

👋🏼 @ks905383 and @jcla490, Would you like to review this submission to the Journal for Open Source Software? Our reviews are checklist-driven and openly conducted on GitHub over a timeline of 4–6 weeks. Because the process is much more iterative and interactive than a traditional paper review, we would ask you to start within the next 2 weeks. Here are reviewer guidelines for reference: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Thanks for your consideration.

[ks905383]

Sounds good!

[cheginit]

@ks905383, thanks for agreeing to review this submission. I will open a new issue with instructions for the review.

[cheginit]

@editorialbot add @ks905383 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@ks905383 added to the reviewers list!

[cheginit]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #7406.