[REVIEW]: itmlogic: Longley Rice Irregular Terrain Model

[whedon]

Submitting author: @edwardoughton (Edward J. Oughton)
Repository: https://github.com/edwardoughton/itmlogic
Version: v1.1
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewer: @gorlapraveen, @garrettj403
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3931350

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e170845c6121712db6a71a1095a617e4"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e170845c6121712db6a71a1095a617e4/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e170845c6121712db6a71a1095a617e4/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e170845c6121712db6a71a1095a617e4)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@gorlapraveen & @garrettj403, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @danielskatz know.

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next six weeks ✨

Review checklist for @gorlapraveen

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@edwardoughton) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

• Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

Review checklist for @garrettj403

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@edwardoughton) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

• Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @gorlapraveen, @garrettj403 it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper 🎉.

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

⭐ Important ⭐

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

2. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.tele.2019.01.003 is OK
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2949460 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

[danielskatz]

👋 @gorlapraveen & @garrettj403 - thanks for agreeing to review this submission. Please be sure to read the comments above, and let me know if you have any questions. Basically, your job is to check the article proof and repository and check items off your checklist above.

If you see small problems that need to be discussed, feel free to discuss them here. But if you can, create a new issue in the target repository and link to this review thread in that issue to create corresponding breadcrumb trail here.

I look forward to seeing how this review goes

[garrettj403]

Hello @edwardoughton,

I have a couple comments on your paper:

• You wrote "... access to disparate user base ...". Do you mean "dispersed user base"?
• I think that "Longley-Rice" should be hyphenated.
• You should check the capitalization of the titles in your references. E.g., "The its irregular terrain model..." should be changed to "The ITS Irregular Terrain Model...".
• The final reference is wonky. You have the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences listed as the author.

Overall, the paper was very well-written. The software was also easy to install on my computer and I hope to finish reviewing the code in the next couple days. Note: I had the same issue as @gorlapraveen that he raised in issue #34 (missing rasterstats package).

[danielskatz]

Thanks @garrettj403 - if you and @gorlapraveen can add a link to this issue (#2266) in any issues you open in the source repo, the will be flagged here and anyone looking at this issue will be able to tell if they are open or closed as well.

[edwardoughton]

Thank you for the review feedback @garrettj403 and @gorlapraveen, we're working to turn these corrections around.

[edwardoughton]

Hello @edwardoughton,

I have a couple comments on your paper:

• You wrote "... access to disparate user base ...". Do you mean "dispersed user base"?
• I think that "Longley-Rice" should be hyphenated.
• You should check the capitalization of the titles in your references. E.g., "The its irregular terrain model..." should be changed to "The ITS Irregular Terrain Model...".
• The final reference is wonky. You have the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences listed as the author.

Overall, the paper was very well-written. The software was also easy to install on my computer and I hope to finish reviewing the code in the next couple days. Note: I had the same issue as @gorlapraveen that he raised in issue #34 (missing rasterstats package).

@garrettj403 I've now made most of those changes. I'm not sure the reference is wonky for the last entry in the bib as this is a citation of the website that releases the code. I think ITS seems like the right author, as it's their website, but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise.

[danielskatz]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

[danielskatz]

the bib problem is in formatting - please merge edwardoughton/itmlogic#39 to fix it (and some other bib problems)

[danielskatz]

then you can put in a new comment here with @whedon generate pdf to regenerate the pdf.

[gorlapraveen]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

[danielskatz]

@gorlapraveen - we need changes in the repo before it's useful to regenerate the pdf.

[edwardoughton]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

[edwardoughton]

@gorlapraveen @garrettj403 @danielskatz I think that fixed the bibliography ordering plus capitalizations. Please let me know if there is anything else.

[danielskatz]

I'm not sure why you made changes manually rather than just merging the PR. You missed the {}s around MHz and GHz. Otherwise, it looks ok to me.

[edwardoughton]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

[edwardoughton]

I'm not sure why you made changes manually rather than just merging the PR. You missed the {}s around MHz and GHz. Otherwise, it looks ok to me.

Apologies Daniel, I missed the PR! Thanks for that. I hope this is resolved now.

[danielskatz]

no problem

[danielskatz]

thanks @garrettj403!

I now look forward to hearing from @gorlapraveen

[gorlapraveen]

Hi @edwardoughton, the functionality and the use of algorithms is technically quite satisfying. However, I would also suggest you to document where User inputs can be given. Such as where to change the operating frequencies for different modes. This would be my final comment and we can proceed for publication.

[edwardoughton]

@gorlapraveen I've now adapted the example running scripts and the documentation to reflect the main user defined parameters. This includes having a dict which contains the main parameters which the user can concisely state before calling the itmfunction. Hopefully this makes things clearer.

I also separated out the example scripts which use either 1 DEM tile or 2 DEM tiles, to overcome the issue of working across large areas which some users will need to deal with. The documentation also now reflects these changes.

Thanks for the review feedback, Ed

[gorlapraveen]

@edwardoughton Thanks for the changes. Looks great!
@danielskatz I also recommend for publishing.

[edwardoughton]

Fantastic, thanks for the review @gorlapraveen.

[danielskatz]

thanks @gorlapraveen!

[danielskatz]

@edwardoughton - at this point, please:

• Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here.
• Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g. figshare, an institutional repository)
• Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) has the correct metadata, this includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it); you may also add the authors' ORCID.
• Please list the DOI of the archived version here.

I can then move forward with accepting the submission, which will include me proofreading the paper and the references.

[edwardoughton]

@edwardoughton - at this point, please:

• Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here.
• Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g. figshare, an institutional repository)
• Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) has the correct metadata, this includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it); you may also add the authors' ORCID.
• Please list the DOI of the archived version here.

I can then move forward with accepting the submission, which will include me proofreading the paper and the references.

Thanks @danielskatz, I should now have completed those tasks. Please let me know if I missed anything.

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3931350

Zonodo link: https://zenodo.org/record/3931350#.XwLumihKh9M

[danielskatz]

@whedon set v1.1 as version

[whedon]

OK. v1.1 is the version.

[danielskatz]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3931350 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3931350 is the archive.

[danielskatz]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

[danielskatz]

@whedon accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.tele.2019.01.003 is OK
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2949460 is OK
- 10.1108/DPRG-02-2018-0004 is OK
- 10.1016/j.telpol.2017.07.009 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2020.101515 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

👋 @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#1548

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#1548, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

[danielskatz]

@whedon accept deposit=true

[whedon]

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

[whedon]

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

[whedon]

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.02266 joss-papers#1549
1. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02266
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

[danielskatz]

Thanks to @gorlapraveen & @garrettj403 for reviewing!

Congratulations to @edwardoughton (Edward J. Oughton) and co-authors!!

[whedon]

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02266/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02266)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02266">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02266/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02266/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02266

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

• Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss