[PRE REVIEW]: shipgrav: A Python package for marine gravimetry

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @hfmark (Hannah Mark)
Repository: https://github.com/PFPE/shipgrav
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @rwegener2
Reviewers: @andreww, @malmans2
Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/672f14b918768cf09b3a994fc3fd18d3"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/672f14b918768cf09b3a994fc3fd18d3/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/672f14b918768cf09b3a994fc3fd18d3/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/672f14b918768cf09b3a994fc3fd18d3)

Author instructions

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

@hfmark 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=0.03 s (1024.0 files/s, 139019.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          19            704           1162           1963
YAML                             5             14             22            240
TeX                              1             13              0            175
Markdown                         2             22              0             64
Bourne Shell                     1              8             19             52
TOML                             2              4              0             50
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
reStructuredText                 1             12             10             17
HTML                             1              0              0             10
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            34            789           1221           2606
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    48	Hannah Mark

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1029/2020JB021109 is OK
- 10.1016/S0012-821X(97)00194-5 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1973.tb06513.x is OK
- 10.1029/JZ071i002p00465 is OK
- 10.1029/JZ071i002p00487 is OK
- 10.1190/1.1440369 is OK
- 10.1190/1.1442196 is OK
- 10.1029/RG005i004p00477 is OK
- 10.1029/JZ064i012p02351 is OK
- 10.1126/science.1258213 is OK
- 10.1029/2019GC008711 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- None

❌ MISSING DOIs

- 10.1002/andp.19193641604 may be a valid DOI for title: Experimenteller Nachweis der Schwereänderung, die ...

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 867

✅ 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 @hfmark 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.

[hfmark]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[hfmark]

Hi @kthyng! I think I fixed the one DOI issue that was flagged. For reviewer suggestions, here are a few from that database who look likely: akinremisa, andreww, mrava87, kwinkunks, malmans2, Haipeng-ustc, and leouieda.

[kthyng]

@hfmark some questions/comments:

• Could this be released onto PyPI or conda-forge so users could install that way? This wouldn't hold up review but I would like to see this happen as part of the review process, if possible.
• Say hi to Masako for me!!!

[hfmark]

* Could this be released onto PyPI or conda-forge so users could install that way? This wouldn't hold up review but I would like to see this happen as part of the review process, if possible.

Possibly! I'll look into it and see how far I get.

* Say hi to Masako for me!!!

Will do :)

[kthyng]

Here are resources:

• https://www.pyopensci.org/python-package-guide/
• https://www.pyopensci.org/python-package-guide/package-structure-code/publish-python-package-pypi-conda.html#

If there isn't a good reason you can't do this (at least PyPI, which is easier), then you should do it because it is much easier for users.

Next step is for me to find an editor for you.

[kthyng]

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

[kthyng]

@jedbrown Can you edit this submission?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @jedbrown as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[hfmark]

Hi @kthyng - I think I've sorted out pypi publishing, pip install shipgrav should work now! And the docs have been updated accordingly.

Also, a few more possibilities for reviewers that I don't think are in your database: GTAIto and dsandwell may or may not be big github users (and I don't know if they've ever done code review in this style) but both know a ton about gravity processing. jrleeman might also be a good option as a geophysics generalist (and looking at his profile I see he's written some gravity-related stuff)

[kthyng]

@rwegener2 Can you edit this submission?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @rwegener2 as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[rwegener2]

@editorialbot add me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @rwegener2 is now the editor

[rwegener2]

👋🏻 @akinremisa and @andreww, would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[andreww]

@rwegener2 - sure, I'm happy to review this. I'm not a gravity person but I really should know enough to be useful (and it's mostly about the software). It won't be until late October though (start of term chaos here for a couple of weeks).

[akinremisa]

@rwegener2 - I am not able to review this submission, because I am not an expert in this domain.

[rwegener2]

Sounds great, thanks @andreww! We typically ask reviewers complete reviews within about 4-6 weeks after both reviewers are identified, so starting at the end of October works well for me.

[rwegener2]

@editorialbot add @andreww as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@andreww added to the reviewers list!

[rwegener2]

👋🏻 @mrava87, would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[mrava87]

@rwegener2 thanks for the invite but this is not really close to my field of expertise, I'll have to pass

[rwegener2]

👋🏻 @malmans2, would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[malmans2]

Hi there,

Sorry about the delay. I'm also not an expert on this field, but I'm happy to review this submission.

[rwegener2]

@editorialbot add @malmans2 as reviewer

Thanks @malmans2!

[editorialbot]

@malmans2 added to the reviewers list!

[rwegener2]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #7358.