[PRE REVIEW]: PyGMI - a python package for geoscience modelling and interpretation

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @Patrick-Cole (Patrick Cole)
Repository: https://github.com/Patrick-Cole/pygmi
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v3.2.8.0
Editor: @boisgera
Reviewers: @AnkitBarik, @AlexanderJuestel
Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b5e69e8e0d634e313e7b0037cadc950f"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b5e69e8e0d634e313e7b0037cadc950f/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b5e69e8e0d634e313e7b0037cadc950f/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b5e69e8e0d634e313e7b0037cadc950f)

Author instructions

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

@Patrick-Cole 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=0.33 s (458.0 files/s, 200041.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          95          12898          15863          34254
reStructuredText                 2            108              0           1043
HTML                            45              3              0            919
TeX                              1             17              0            208
TOML                             1              6              0             71
Markdown                         1              9              0             34
CSV                              1              0              0             27
DOS Batch                        1              1              0             22
YAML                             1              1              4             18
XML                              2              0              0             16
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           150          13043          15867          36612
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   952	Patrick
    86	[email protected]
     6	Janine-Cole
     2	Patrick Cole
     1	Marinda

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1190/1.1439386 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2005.03.002 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2006.02.016 is OK
- 10.1186/s40623-015-0228-9 is OK
- 10.1109/36.3001 is OK
- 10.1190/1.1444531 is OK
- 10.1785/0220190313 is OK
- 10.2113/econgeo.107.2.209 is OK
- 10.1190/1.1988183 is OK
- 10.1190/1.1543203 is OK
- 10.1109/PROC.1981.11918 is OK
- 10.1071/EG08028 is OK
- 10.1190/1.1444942 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Multiresolution Segmentation: An Optimization Appr...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Potential Theory in Gravity and Magnetic Applicati...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: GDAL/OGR Geospatial Data Abstraction software Libr...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Joint modelling of gravity and magnetic fields - a...

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 925

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

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

[editorialbot]

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

[kthyng]

Hi @Patrick-Cole and thanks for your submission! We have a backlog of submissions so I will add this to our waitlist. In the meantime, 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. Thanks for your patience.

[Patrick-Cole]

Hi,

I chose reviewers on the list based on geophysics, python and earth sciences, but honestly, I am not fussy.

Matt Hall
leouieda
TobbeTripitaka
Haipeng Li
margauxmouchene

[kthyng]

@fraukewiese Could you edit this submission?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @fraukewiese as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[kthyng]

@fraukewiese might you be able to edit this submission?

[fraukewiese]

Hi, sorry for the late response. The submission does not fit to my area of expertise, so I need to reject.

[kthyng]

@martinfleis Could you edit this submission?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @martinfleis as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[boisgera]

Hi @kthyng,

If @martinfleis was not available, you could consider inviting me as editor. Geoscience is not my area of expertise, but I belong to a "School of Mines" so many of my colleagues would be great potential reviewers.

[kthyng]

A volunteer! I will most definitely take you up on this!

[kthyng]

@editorialbot assign @boisgera as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @boisgera is now the editor

[boisgera]

I am following several leads internally for reviewers ; I've been recently given a list of people that would be great for this by the head of the Geostats team. I am contacting some of them right now.

[boisgera]

Still following the lead for reviewers in my institution. Great discussion with two of them very recently ; one element of feedback that I have is that they are wary of the magnitude of the work (given that the code base has > 30k loc) ; they need a moment to consider if they go for it or not.

[boisgera]

Still following the lead for reviewers in my institution. Great discussion with two of them very recently ; one element of feedback that I have is that they are wary of the magnitude of the work (given that the code base has > 30k loc) ; they need a moment to consider if they go for it or not.

And ... I failed to convince them. Contacting new potential reviewers right now.

[boisgera]

A new potential reviewer declined after evaluation of the paper. He didn't feel that he had enough expertise on many of the project features (and also, lack of time).

I am going back to the list of potential rewievers.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

GemGIS - Spatial Data Processing for Geomodeling
Submitting author: @AlexanderJuestel
Handling editor: @crvernon (Active)
Reviewers: @omshinde, @kanishkan91
Similarity score: 0.7138

planetMagFields: A Python package for analyzing and plotting planetary magnetic field data
Submitting author: @AnkitBarik
Handling editor: @dfm (Active)
Reviewers: @athulpg007, @kjg136
Similarity score: 0.7106

emg3d: A multigrid solver for 3D electromagnetic diffusion
Submitting author: @prisae
Handling editor: @jedbrown (Active)
Reviewers: @akelbert, @emersodb, @lukeolson
Similarity score: 0.7085

GeoBO: Python package for Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimisation and Joint Inversion in Geosciences
Submitting author: @sebhaan
Handling editor: @hugoledoux (Active)
Reviewers: @npetra, @sgkang
Similarity score: 0.7000

Geodata-Harvester: A Python package to jumpstart geospatial data extraction and analysis
Submitting author: @sebhaan
Handling editor: @hugoledoux (Active)
Reviewers: @lukasbeuster, @martibosch
Similarity score: 0.6969

⚠️ 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]

@boisgera Maybe some of the authors of these similar papers could be relevant?

[boisgera]

@boisgera Maybe some of the authors of these similar papers could be relevant?

Yes, thank you @kthyng!

I was pushing for reviewers coming from my institution so far because I thought that it was worth introducing some new people to JOSS reviews. I also think that it would be beneficial to these researchers (so far the people which have accepted to review for JOSS on my demand like the process a lot better than the classic review process).

But it's now likely that I'll have to contact external reviewers already familiar with JOSS. I have sent today e-mails to the last 2 "obvious" potential reviewers internally and if its doesn't pan out, the authors on your liste are next!

[kthyng]

I like your plan @boisgera!

[boisgera]

But it's now likely that I'll have to contact external reviewers already familiar with JOSS. I have sent today e-mails to the last 2 "obvious" potential reviewers internally and if its doesn't pan out, the authors on your liste are next!

Started to reach out for JOSS paper authors.

[boisgera]

@editorialbot add @AnkitBarik as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@AnkitBarik added to the reviewers list!

[AnkitBarik]

@editorialbot generate checklist

[editorialbot]

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

@editorialbot commands

[AnkitBarik]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @AnkitBarik, 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

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

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

# Run checks and provide information on the repository and the paper file
@editorialbot check repository

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

# 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

[AnkitBarik]

@editorialbot generate my checklist

[editorialbot]

Checklists can only be created once the review has started in the review issue

[boisgera]

Hi @kthyng, @AnkitBarik,

I am discussing with a potential 2nd reviewer who wanted to reach for a colleague first. Hopefully we will be able to start the review soon!

[boisgera]

@editorialbot add @AlexanderJuestel as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@AlexanderJuestel added to the reviewers list!

[boisgera]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #7019.