[PRE REVIEW]: GeophysicalModelGenerator.jl: A Julia package to visualise geoscientific data and create numerical model setups

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @boriskaus (Boris Kaus)
Repository: https://github.com/JuliaGeodynamics/GeophysicalModelGenerator.jl
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): bk-joss-paper
Version: v0.7.0
Editor: @rwegener2
Reviewers: @anowacki, @AnantHariharan1996
Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/55e0a26869bba1d825de1088b75996a4"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/55e0a26869bba1d825de1088b75996a4/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/55e0a26869bba1d825de1088b75996a4/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/55e0a26869bba1d825de1088b75996a4)

Author instructions

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

@boriskaus 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

[kthyng]

@editorialbot check repository

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.10 s (1176.1 files/s, 179230.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                           58           2613           3803           6351
Markdown                        46           1096              0           3825
SVG                              2              0              0            302
YAML                             9             14             12            209
Lisp                             1             23              0            119
TeX                              1             16              0             94
TOML                             3              8              0             76
CSV                              1              1              0             18
XML                              1              0              0             12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           122           3771           3815          11006
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   592	Boris Kaus
    62	mthielma
    59	Marcel Thielmann
    35	Pascal Aellig
    25	Arne_Spang
    21	Luca De Siena
    19	ChristianSchuler
    16	ArneSpang
    14	APiccolo89
    13	LukasFuchs
    11	TatjanaWeiler
     7	Albert de Montserrat
     5	Hendrik Ranocha
     5	dependabot[bot]
     1	Arne Spang
     1	jfrasunk
     1	nicolasriel

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 2219

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[kthyng]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[kthyng]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5194/se-10-1785-2019 is OK
- 10.1029/2019GC008515 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-12-1-2019 is OK
- 10.5194/se-12-2671-2021 is OK
- 10.1029/2023GC011356 is OK
- 10.1029/2021JB023488 is OK
- 10.51363/unifr.sth.2022.001 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1969.tb00259.x is OK
- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1029/2023GL104895 is OK
- 10.1029/2023GL103132 is OK
- 2128/9842 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-023-47104-w is OK
- 10.1029/2018GC008057 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-017-11039-w is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[kthyng]

Hi @boriskaus and thanks for your submission! I am looking for some specific items to make sure your submission fits our requirements at a high level before moving on to finding an editor or putting this on our waitlist if no relevant editors are available. I'll comment as I have a chance to go through them:

• Substantial scholarly effort
• Documentation
• Tests of some sort
• Installation instructions
• Clear research application
• Check paper

[kthyng]

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.

[boriskaus]

potential reviewers would be: lanari, anowacki, JordiBolibar, Alexander-Barth, peanutfun

[kthyng]

@martinfleis Could you edit this submission?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @martinfleis as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[martinfleis]

Hey @kthyng, I can't do that now. I will need to take a pause from editing for some time.

[kthyng]

@rwegener2 Could you edit this submission?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @rwegener2 as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[rwegener2]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @rwegener2 is now the editor

[rwegener2]

👋🏻 @daniellivingston & @anowacki, would either of 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

[anowacki]

Hi @rwegener2 – yes, I can do this.

[rwegener2]

@editorialbot add @anowacki as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@anowacki added to the reviewers list!

[rwegener2]

👋🏻 @AnantHariharan1996, 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

[AnantHariharan1996]

Hello @rwegener2; I am happy to review this submission.

[rwegener2]

@editorialbot add @AnantHariharan1996 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@AnantHariharan1996 added to the reviewers list!

[rwegener2]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6763.