[REVIEW]: WDPM: the Wetland DEM Ponding Model

[whedon]

Submitting author: @KevinShook (Kevin Shook)
Repository: https://github.com/CentreForHydrology/WDPM
Version: v2.0b
Editor: @kbarnhart
Reviewer: @r-barnes, @awickert, @KCallaghan
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5165172

⚠️ 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/407a1b519d6242721f056cfeee7669ec"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/407a1b519d6242721f056cfeee7669ec/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/407a1b519d6242721f056cfeee7669ec/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/407a1b519d6242721f056cfeee7669ec)

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

@r-barnes & @awickert & @KCallaghan, 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 @kbarnhart know.

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

Review checklist for @r-barnes

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 (@KevinShook) 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 @awickert

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 (@KevinShook) 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 @KCallaghan

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 (@KevinShook) 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. @r-barnes, @awickert, @KCallaghan 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

- 10.1002/hyp.6787 is OK
- 10.1002/hyp.8381 is OK
- 10.1002/hyp.9867 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.12.014 is OK
- 10.1016/S0022-1694(03)00175-6 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

[kbarnhart]

@KevinShook, @r-barnes, @awickert, @KCallaghan

I wanted to check in and see how things were going with this review, and to answer any questions if you have them. As mentioned above, JOSS is presently requesting reviewers complete their reviews in six weeks (a bit more than three weeks from now).

@KCallaghan thanks for linking all of your issues to this one 👍 🎉

[KevinShook]

There are still some outstanding issues with the program, particularly in terms of the installation.
This may be because the code has not been looked at for over 6 years.
We are attempting to fix the issues.

[awickert]

@kbarnhart The review is in the schedule! It should reach the top of the queue in 1.5 weeks.

[kbarnhart]

All- Thanks for the updates. Please let me know if I can do anything to support the review process.

[KevinShook]

Thanks very much - will do

[KevinShook]

Should I be storing the paper on Zenodo as well? As it is under a CC4 licence, I would assume that it would have to be kept separate from the program which is GPL3 - is that correct?

[kbarnhart]

The entire repo at https://github.com/CentreForHydrology/WDPM is what should be in the Zenodo archive.

I'd expect that the .bib and the .md for the paper are covered under the repository's license, while the final publication is what would be under the CC4. I am not a license expert though.

I think that answers the question, but if it doesn't, let me know.

[KevinShook]

Ah, thanks very much, that's a big help

[KevinShook]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

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

[KevinShook]

The tagged release (v2.0b) is now on GitHub:
https://github.com/CentreForHydrology/WDPM/releases/tag/v2.0b

[KevinShook]

The archived code is now on Zenodo.
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5165172

Thanks very much for all the help

[kbarnhart]

@whedon set v2.0b as version

[whedon]

OK. v2.0b is the version.

[kbarnhart]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.5165172 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.5165172 is the archive.

[kbarnhart]

@whedon recommend accept

[whedon]

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

@whedon commands

[kbarnhart]

@whedon recommend-accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

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

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#2505

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#2505, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

[whedon]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104850 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104850 is OK
- 10.5194/esurf-8-431-2020 is OK
- 10.5194/esurf-9-105-2021 is OK
- 10.5194/esurf-7-737-2019 is OK
- 10.1029/2020WR027984 is OK
- 10.1002/hyp.10567 is OK
- 10.1007/s10669-018-9684-7 is OK
- /10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00098-5 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1745-6584.1988.tb00794.x is OK
- 10.1002/esp.3888 is OK
- 10.1002/hyp.6787 is OK
- 10.1002/hyp.9409 is OK
- 10.1002/hyp.8381 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125846 is OK
- 10.1002/hyp.9867 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.12.014 is OK
- 10.1016/S0022-1694(03)00175-6 is OK
- 10.3390/w11122486 is OK
- 10.1016/0022-1694(93)90275-E is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[kbarnhart]

@KevinShook I've now recommended that this submission be accepted. One of the @openjournals/joss-eics will handle the final steps of this process. Congratulations on a valuable contribution. Many thanks to reviewers @r-barnes @awickert @KCallaghan for you thoughtful and constructive reviews.

[KevinShook]

Wonderful. Thanks so much again for shepherding us through the process, and thanks as well to the reviewers for making the paper and the program much better.

[arfon]

@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.02276 joss-papers#2510
1. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02276
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...

[arfon]

@r-barnes, @awickert, @KCallaghan – many thanks for your reviews here and to @kbarnhart for editing this submission! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you ✨

@KevinShook – your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS ⚡🚀💥

[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.02276/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02276)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02276">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02276/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02276/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02276

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