[PRE REVIEW]: Flood Resilience Digital Twin: A system to enable flood risk analysis and prediction

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @LukeParky (Luke Parkinson)
Repository: https://github.com/GeospatialResearch/Digital-Twins
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): master
Version: v1.2.0
Editor: @cheginit
Reviewers: @pritamd47, @changliao1025
Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8bc2b3a97de296355fec1f243010401c"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8bc2b3a97de296355fec1f243010401c/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8bc2b3a97de296355fec1f243010401c/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/8bc2b3a97de296355fec1f243010401c)

Author instructions

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

@LukeParky 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=0.46 s (630.9 files/s, 435119.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JSON                            18              0              0         136530
HTML                            83           2216            238          20677
JavaScript                      18           3991           4158           7210
Python                          53           1421           5353           4277
SVG                              1              0              0           2671
CSS                              6            198             51            824
YAML                             8             63             18            766
reStructuredText                76           3392           4631            569
Vuejs Component                  6             42             79            427
Markdown                         6             75              0            248
TeX                              1             16              0            158
Dockerfile                       2             32             28             80
TypeScript                       7             13             20             76
Bourne Shell                     3             13             11             43
Scheme                           1              0              0             28
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           291          11484          14595         174619
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

  1208	Casey Li
   400	Luke Parkinson
   135	Pooja3894
   103	Pooja Khosla
    37	Rose Pearson
    22	PoojaKhosla
    13	Xander Cai
     7	GRI Admin
     5	xandercai
     4	Casey
     4	Martin
     4	Sam Thompson
     3	Angus L
     2	Martin Nguyen
     2	sli229
     1	UOCNT
     1	martin20494

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1255

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2023.105842 is OK
- 10.3390/ijerph18083952 is OK
- 10.1080/17477891.2022.2142500 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-022-30725-6 is OK
- 10.1080/03036758.2023.2211777 is OK
- 10.1080/19475705.2018.1552630 is OK
- 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1123016/v1 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Flood Resilience Digital Twin (FReDT)
- No DOI given, and none found for title: BG Flood
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Mā te haumaru ō ngā puna wai ō Rākaihautū ka ora m...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Flooding Brings Deep Trouble
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Climate Change Implications for New Zealand
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Hydrological projections for New Zealand rivers un...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Hirds.v3: High Intensity Rainfall Design System – ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Towards a National Digital Twin for Flood Resilien...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Regional Flood Estimation Tool for New Zealand Par...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Regional Flood Estimation Tool for New Zealand Par...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 (Check here for OSI approval)

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

ur-scape: harnessing data for stakeholder participation in city-making processes
Submitting author: @luyuhao0326
Handling editor: @hugoledoux (Active)
Reviewers: @winstonyym, @cforgaci
Similarity score: 0.6821

NeuralHydrology --- A Python library for Deep Learning research in hydrology
Submitting author: @kratzert
Handling editor: @elbeejay (Active)
Reviewers: @ammilten, @chuckaustin, @jhamman
Similarity score: 0.6814

HydroMT: Automated and reproducible model building and analysis
Submitting author: @dirkeilander
Handling editor: @elbeejay (Active)
Reviewers: @JannisHoch, @mcflugen, <s>@LejoFlores</s>
Similarity score: 0.6805

HyRiver: Hydroclimate Data Retriever
Submitting author: @cheginit
Handling editor: @kthyng (Active)
Reviewers: @raoulcollenteur, @arbennett
Similarity score: 0.6793

pyflowline: a mesh-independent river network generator for hydrologic models
Submitting author: @changliao1025
Handling editor: @observingClouds (Active)
Reviewers: @smchartrand, @andres-patrignani
Similarity score: 0.6668

⚠️ 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]

Welcome back @LukeParky 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.

Here is the previous pre-review issue: #6664

[LukeParky]

Suggestions for reviewers, based on their domains and programming languages.
I am not aware of any conflicts of interest here.

Github Username	Name	Reviewer link
pritamd47	Pritam Das	https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/reviewers/4279
arbenett		https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/reviewers/986
changliao1025		https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/reviewers/2478
SaumikDana		https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/reviewers/1817
cheginit	Taher Chegini	https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/reviewers/1245

[kthyng]

Ok I see my comments from last time were:

all the editors who voted wondered if there could be a live demo available and why there wasn't one.

Despite your list of docs, they still seem a bit light, but perhaps that will come up more during review.

and otherwise we were ready to move forward when you wanted to do some further development. I'll add this to our waitlist for an editor now.

[LukeParky]

all the editors who voted wondered if there could be a live demo available and why there wasn't one.

I agree with this, but unfortunately this has not been possible so far, though it may change in the future.

Despite your list of docs, they still seem a bit light, but perhaps that will come up more during review.

We have extended the docs since this point according to informal feedback from users and developers, but perhaps more will come up during review.

[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]

👋🏼 @pritamd47 and @arbennett, 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]

👋🏼 @changliao1025 and @mcflugen, 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.

[pritamd47]

👋🏼 @pritamd47 and @arbennett, 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.

Hi, thanks for the invitation to review. I am new to reviewing for JOSS. Should I go ahead and review the paper and submit it in this thread, or do I submit it elsewhere? The reviewer checklist mentions leaving a comment here on completion of the review. I just wasn't sure where to submit the review. Any past examples would also be helpful in understanding how to submit the review.

[cheginit]

@pritamd47 Thanks for agreeing to review this submission and welcome to the JOSS community! I will open a new issue with detailed instructions for the review process.

[cheginit]

@editorialbot add @pritamd47 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@pritamd47 added to the reviewers list!

[cheginit]

👋🏼 @JannisHoch, @dkedar7, and @rreinecke, 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.

[pritamd47]

@pritamd47 Thanks for agreeing to review this submission and welcome to the JOSS community! I will open a new issue with detailed instructions for the review process.

Hi @cheginit. I didn't receive any notification related to the issue you mention with instructions the review.

[cheginit]

Hi @pritamd47. I still need to find another reviewer. Once I do, I will create the new issue that I mentioned and ping you. Thanks.

[pritamd47]

Hi @pritamd47. I still need to find another reviewer. Once I do, I will create the new issue that I mentioned and ping you. Thanks.

Okay got it, thanks for clarifying. I was worried that I missed something 😅

[cheginit]

@pritamd47 thank you for checking with me!

[JannisHoch]

@cheginit I am sorry, I am too swamped currently and this will likely not change towards the end of the year. Have to give this a pass unofortunately!

[cheginit]

@JannisHoch Thanks for letting me know about your availability.

[changliao1025]

👋🏼 @changliao1025 and @mcflugen, 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 for the late response, I will start this process this week.

[cheginit]

@@changliao1025 Thanks for agreeing to review this submission. I will create a new issue with instructions for beginning the review.

[cheginit]

@editorialbot add @changliao1025 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@changliao1025 added to the reviewers list!

[cheginit]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #7433.