[PRE REVIEW]: Effluent - A python package for modelling effluent discharge

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @pnsaevik (Pål Næverlid Sævik)
Repository: https://github.com/pnsaevik/effluent
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.2
Editor: @kthyng
Reviewers: @castelao, @bastorer
Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9e755d60196949d66ddbf2d803a74460"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9e755d60196949d66ddbf2d803a74460/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9e755d60196949d66ddbf2d803a74460/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9e755d60196949d66ddbf2d803a74460)

Author instructions

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

@pnsaevik 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

[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 1.88  T=0.04 s (1462.3 files/s, 117994.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          17            376            163           1484
reStructuredText                16            466            767            368
TOML                             8             14             21            155
Markdown                         3             37              0             93
YAML                             3             10             14             77
TeX                              1              5              0             63
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
CSS                              1              3              0             19
make                             1              4              7              9
INI                              1              0              0              6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            52            923            973           2300
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1023/A:1025583110842 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.08.018 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4615-0407-8 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ocemod.2004.08.002 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 255

[editorialbot]

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

[kthyng]

Hi @pnsaevik and thanks for your submission! We don't have editors available at the moment so I will add this to the waitlist. Thanks for your patience.

[pnsaevik]

In addition to the reviewers in your pool, you might want to contact the github user nordam as a potential reviewer. Apart from this, users which have already agreed to be JOSS reviewers and have Python & oceanography/fluid dynamics and/or turbulence modelling in their listed preference, might be suitable candidates.

[kthyng]

@pnsaevik Sounds great — can you take a look at the list and give 5+ specific suggestions? Just their username without the "@", please.

[pnsaevik]

Potential reviewers from the existing pool, based on their listed preferences, are:

ashwinvis
olgadoronina
dl11g11
haoxx081
edoddridge
tomchor
wingtorres

[kthyng]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @kthyng is now the editor

[kthyng]

@pnsaevik I'll take on your submission!

[kthyng]

@edoddridge and @dl11g11 are you interested in reviewing this submission for JOSS? Reviews are done in a github issue and consist of a thorough software review. I would ask you to get started with your review in the next 3 weeks or so since usually the process is iterative between you and the author. You can check out the reviewer guidelines. Thank you for your consideration!

[pnsaevik]

Hi @kthyng, do you want to invite some other reviewers since @edoddridge and @dl11g11 have not responded?

[kthyng]

@pnsaevik It's hard being able to see what is or isn't apparently happening in your submission review huh! Yes, I will try again.

[kthyng]

@tomchor and @castelao Do you have the time and interest in reviewing this JOSS submission? As you know, reviews are done in a github issue and consist of a thorough software review. I would ask you to get started with your review in the next 3 weeks or so since usually the process is iterative between you and the author. You can check out the reviewer guidelines. Thank you for your consideration!

[castelao]

@kthyng , I can do that.

[edoddridge]

Sorry. This got lost in my notifications - I didn't realise I got tagged in two JOSS threads at nearly the same time and only responded to the other one.
I don't have time at the moment to review this.

[kthyng]

@castelao Awesome thanks!

@edoddridge I saw you got pinged right after I pinged you. Sorry about that — we don't have a way to track review requests, only once people are actually reviewing.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot add @castelao as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@castelao added to the reviewers list!

[castelao]

@kthyng , JOSS used to have a rubric for review with an explicit list of checkmarks. Do you still use it? Where may I find it? Thanks,

[kthyng]

@castelao sorry for my delay, I have been swamped! Yes, you can see more info about that here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_checklist.html#review-checklist

[kthyng]

@bastorer I don't suppose you're up for a JOSS review so soon after your epic review ended? If you are, we'd love to have you review this submission! You probably got a feel for in being on the other side, but here are some docs you can check out too: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

[bastorer]

@kthyng Sure, I'd be happy to :-)

[kthyng]

Awesome thanks! I'll add you now and start the review.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot add @bastorer as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@bastorer added to the reviewers list!

[kthyng]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #5554.