[PRE REVIEW]: SlideRule: Enabling rapid, scalable, open science for the NASA ICESat-2 mission and beyond
editorialbot opened this issue · 58 comments
Submitting author: @dshean (David Shean)
Repository: https://github.com/ICESat2-SlideRule/paper
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main
Version: v1.4.6
Editor: @kthyng
Reviewers: @jhkennedy, @betolink
Managing EiC: Arfon Smith
Status
Status badge code:
HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ddd37aab8ef5bda53725e9a262ec6cfd"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ddd37aab8ef5bda53725e9a262ec6cfd/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ddd37aab8ef5bda53725e9a262ec6cfd)
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @dshean. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
@dshean 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
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
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.08 s (720.9 files/s, 140551.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 31 681 1959 4282
Jupyter Notebook 8 0 2219 916
Dockerfile 1 22 2 216
TeX 1 12 0 166
YAML 7 13 8 147
Markdown 2 50 0 128
JSON 3 2 0 52
Bourne Shell 2 5 14 19
INI 1 0 0 5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 56 785 4202 5931
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md is 1923
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/j.rse.2019.111325 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rse.2016.12.029 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rse.2019.111352 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rse.2018.11.005 is OK
- 10.5067/ATLAS/ATL03.005 is OK
- 10.1007/s12145-020-00520-2 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.6717591 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.6917373 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3665785 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.6697361 is OK
- 10.1016/j.srs.2020.100002 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
@editorialbot invite @leouieda as editor
👋 @leouieda – would you be willing to edit this submission for JOSS?
Invitation to edit this submission sent!
@editorialbot assign @leouieda as editor
Assigned! @leouieda is now the editor
👋🏾 Hi @dshean, I'll be handling the review process for your paper.
This is a pre-review where we make sure everything is alright and try to find reviewers. The actual review will only start later on and will take place in a different issue. I'll do a first editorial pass through the submission to make sure it fits our submission requirements (I may ask for a few clarifications or modifications). If all is well, I'll proceed to inviting reviewers and once we have enough (usually 2-4) we'll start the actual review.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to ping me in this issue or email me if the message needs to be private.
Please keep an eye on your GitHub notifications since this will be our primary mode of communication.
@dshean is this submission about just the Python client (sliderule-python) or about the entire stack (server, client, and icesat-2 plugin)? The paper is describing the entire stack but the repository linked above that hosts the paper is just the Python client.
Hi @leouieda. This submission was intended to provide a snapshot of the current state of the SlideRule stack, but the emphasis is placed on the sliderule-python client functionality and ICESat-2 support, which is most relevant to users.
The documentation was moved to a standalone repo in May 2022: https://github.com/ICESat2-SlideRule/sliderule-docs
The server-side code, mostly C++ is in a separate repo: https://github.com/ICESat2-SlideRule/sliderule
This organization made the most sense for our project. Hopefully not an issue for JOSS. Thanks!
@dshean it's not an issue 🙂 I just wanted to get a better picture to figure out how to handle the reviewer invitations.
The JOSS review is focused on the software (code, documentation, community practices) and so it needs to be clear which code repositories are being reviewed. Since this is a very integrated stack with server and client apps, I think it makes sense to review it all at once. The client by itself might not be enough to warrant a separate publication. I'll try to get reviewers with skills that can cover each aspect of the stack and the domain application for ICESat-2.
Since the code spans multiple repositories, you'll need to make a few modifications to the submission before we can get started:
- Create a new separate repository in your organisation to host the JOSS
paper.md. - Post a link to the new paper repo here.
- Include links in the paper text and the new repo's README to the individual repositories for the server, client, and any other code repository included in the review. This is to make it clear to reviewers and readers of the paper which code was reviewed.
This is how we've handled multiple repository submissions in the past and it works well to lower the complexity for reviewers.
Once this is done, I will start inviting reviewers. If you have any suggestions for possible reviewers, post their user names or email below. Please don't @-mention them (e.g. @leouieda) to avoid notifying them ahead of an invitation from me.
Link to new paper repo: https://github.com/ICESat2-SlideRule/paper
README.md and paper.md both contain updated list of project repos with links and brief description
@leouieda, here is a list of potential reviewers, with links to github pages. We attempted to identify individuals with broad expertise who could review different components of the SlideRule project:
- Joe Kennedy, ASF/HyP3
- Alex Gardner, JPL/ITS_LIVE
- Chris Crosby, OpenTopography/OpenAltimetry
- Howard Butler, Hobu/PDAL
- Jessica Scheick, icepyx
- John Readey, HDFGroup
- Luis Lopez, NSIDC
Hi @leouieda. Just wanted to confirm that the new repo addresses all of your requests. We can provide additional reviewer suggestions if needed. Thanks!
Hi @leouieda ! Any update on review status? We can recommend additional reviewers if necessary.
We are getting requests from users on they should cite SlideRule for their publications using the service and resulting data products. For now we can point to Zenodo records, but hoping to have the JOSS paper out as the primary source. Thanks!
@editorialbot assign me as editor
👋 @dshean – apologies for the very slow movement here. I'm going to take this submission on for @leouieda.
Assigned! @arfon is now the editor
@editorialbot set https://github.com/ICESat2-SlideRule/paper as repository
Done! repository is now https://github.com/ICESat2-SlideRule/paper
@editorialbot generate pdf
@editorialbot set main as branch
Done! branch is now main
@editorialbot generate pdf
👋 @cjcrosby @hobu @JessicaS11 – would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The submission under consideration is SlideRule, a toolset for researchers leveraging the NASA ICESat-2 mission.
The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. You can learn more about the process in these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html
Based on your experience, we think you might be able to provide a great review of this submission. Please let me know if you think you can help us out!
Many thanks
Arfon
Sorry, I don't have cycles for this. Thanks for thinking of me.
Thanks for the invitation, but I have some upcoming PTO and other pressing projects that will prevent me from providing a timely review.
Off the top of my head, these are some other folks who may be interested in reviewing:
Laurence Hawker, University of Bristol (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=k5ajFzUAAAAJ&hl=en) who used ICESat-2 for the new FABDEM product
Tom Hengl, OpenGeoHub (https://opengeohub.org/poeple/tom-hengl/)
John Lindsey, University of Guelph / Whitebox Geospatial (https://jblindsay.github.io/ghrg/software.shtml)
Thanks for the invite. I have some potential COIs. Should I report those here or to @arfon directly?
Here is best if it's not something private, and if it is something you don't want to share publicly, directly to @arfon would be fine
I have an affiliate appointment at the University of Washington, the lead submitter's institution. He and I worked together organizing Hackweeks (and are thus also on some joint JupyterBook Zenodo releases). I have also attended many SlideRule developer meetings, am on their Slack page, and occasionally meet with their lead developer to work on synergies between our two tools (icepyx).
Hi @arfon and @danielskatz, any update on reviewers for this paper? This was submitted August 22, 2022. We can recommend additional reviewers if needed.
I note that @JessicaS11 now has a JOSS paper under review for an October 3, 2022 submission, describing another ICESat-2 software package: #4912
If the scope of our submission is too large, we can limit review to the sliderule-python repository. Thanks!
👋 @dshean - we've gone to a track-based model of editing, and the editor for this track is @openjournals/ese-eics who I am pinging here
Thanks @danielskatz!
I get a 404 when clicking on that link, and I don't see the teams. Is that expected?
Hi @dshean and thanks for your patience. I'll be taking over as editor. I'll do my best to get this rolling, I'm sorry for the delay!
@editorialbot assign me as editor
Assigned! @kthyng is now the editor
@JessicaS11 I think that is too close, but thank you for the info and willingness to review.
Hi @jhkennedy and @jreadey! Would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The submission under consideration is SlideRule, a toolset for researchers leveraging the NASA ICESat-2 mission.
The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. You can learn more about the process in these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html
Based on your experience, we think you might be able to provide a great review of this submission. Please let me know if you think you can help us out!
Hi @kthyng I'd be happy to review! Since this review has been pending for a while, what timeline for review are you expecting? I likely cannot get to it this week, might be able to next week, but for sure can get to it before Thanksgiving (by Nov 23).
@jhkennedy awesome! Yes before Thanksgiving would be great! I'll add you to the reviewer list, and then I'll start the review once we have a second reviewer in place.
@editorialbot add @jhkennedy as reviewer
@jhkennedy added to the reviewers list!
Hi @betolink! Would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The submission under consideration is SlideRule, a toolset for researchers leveraging the NASA ICESat-2 mission.
The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. You can learn more about the process in these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html
Based on your experience, we think you might be able to provide a great review of this submission. Please let me know if you think you can help us out!
Hi @kthyng, thanks for the invitation, I can help with the review but I'm busy until the 28th, is there a deadline for submission?
@betolink Thanks for your response! There isn't a specific deadline — the 28th would work for us, with the goal that between you and @jhkennedy we can get the reviews underway then in the next two weeks and hopefully finished in the couple of weeks after that, depending on the level of changes necessary.
If you agree, I will add you as a reviewer and get the review issue started!
@editorialbot add @betolink as reviewer
@betolink added to the reviewers list!
@editorialbot start review
OK, I've started the review over in #4982.