[REVIEW]: LorenzCycleToolkit: A Comprehensive Python Tool for Analyzing Atmospheric Energy Cycles #7139

editorialbot · 2024-08-23T17:35:41Z

Submitting author: @daniloceano (Danilo Couto de Souza)
Repository: https://github.com/daniloceano/LorenzCycleToolkit
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-submission
Version: v1.0.7
Editor: @observingClouds
Reviewers: @einaraz, @amylu00
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.13765959

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c1ad50dd5ed033837a64dc1f9f3ff643"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c1ad50dd5ed033837a64dc1f9f3ff643/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c1ad50dd5ed033837a64dc1f9f3ff643/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c1ad50dd5ed033837a64dc1f9f3ff643)

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

@einaraz & @amylu00, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

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

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @amylu00

📝 Checklist for @einaraz

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

editorialbot · 2024-08-23T17:35:44Z

Hello humans, 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 · 2024-08-23T17:36:03Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.06 s (1607.5 files/s, 140587.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          30            997           1315           4072
CSV                             46              0              0            959
SVG                              1              1              1            472
reStructuredText                14            135            178            214
YAML                             4             46              0            204
Markdown                         4             53              0            148
TeX                              1             13              0            126
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
Bourne Shell                     1              7              0             12
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           103           1264           1502           6242
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   478	daniloceano
    83	Danilo Couto d Souza
    24	Danilo Couto de Souza

editorialbot · 2024-08-23T17:36:08Z

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1127

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot · 2024-08-23T17:36:08Z

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.3402/tellusa.v7i2.8796 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Energy Cycle in Atmospheric Models
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Nature and Theory of the General Circulation o...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Data Science with Python and Dask
- No DOI given, and none found for title: xarray: ND Labeled Arrays and Datasets in Python
- No DOI given, and none found for title: pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas 1.0.5
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Array Programming with NumPy

❌ MISSING DOIs

- 10.1007/bf01029650 may be a valid DOI for title: The Global Energy Cycle of Stationary and Transien...
- 10.1029/2007gl029985 may be a valid DOI for title: Lorenz Energy Cycle of the Global Atmosphere Based...
- 10.1155/2013/485047 may be a valid DOI for title: A Global and Hemispherical Analysis of the Lorenz ...
- 10.1029/2011jd016217 may be a valid DOI for title: The Energy Cycle and Structural Evolution of Cyclo...
- 10.1256/smsqj.55307 may be a valid DOI for title: Quasi-Lagrangian Energetics of an Intense Mediterr...
- 10.1109/38.56302 may be a valid DOI for title: NetCDF: An Interface for Scientific Data Access
- 10.1175/bams-d-21-0125.1 may be a valid DOI for title: MetPy: A Meteorological Python Library for Data An...

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-08-23T17:36:09Z

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU General Public License v3.0 (Check here for OSI approval)

editorialbot · 2024-08-23T17:37:12Z

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

observingClouds · 2024-08-26T10:56:10Z

Hi @daniloceano,
This is the start of the review process. While the reviewers will be busy with reviewing your submission, could you please check the above mentioned references in your manuscript that do appear to miss a DOI and add it if possible. If no DOI is available for an entry, please add a URL and mention here why there is no DOI available, e.g. it is a reference to a poster.
Cheers,
Hauke

observingClouds · 2024-08-26T10:59:16Z

Hi @einaraz, @amylu00,

This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

As a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering

@editorialbot generate my checklist

as the top of a new comment in this thread.

These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/7139 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if any of you require some more time. We can also use EditorialBot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@observingClouds ) if you have any questions/concerns.

daniloceano · 2024-08-26T12:07:56Z

Hi @daniloceano, This is the start of the review process. While the reviewers will be busy with reviewing your submission, could you please check the above mentioned references in your manuscript that do appear to miss a DOI and add it if possible. If no DOI is available for an entry, please add a URL and mention here why there is no DOI available, e.g. it is a reference to a poster. Cheers, Hauke

Hi Hauke,

Thank you for initiating the review process.

I have provided the DOIs for all references except for the following two, as they are books:

"The Nature and Theory of the General Circulation of the Atmosphere"
"Data Science with Python and Dask"

Since these are books, they do not have associated DOIs.

Please let me know if further adjustments are needed.

Best regards,
Danilo

observingClouds · 2024-08-26T15:33:29Z

@daniloceano thanks for the update. Could you please add the ISBN for those books? We just like to have some permanent identifiers referenced to make it easier for readers to find the references later.

amylu00 · 2024-08-26T20:01:35Z

Review checklist for @amylu00

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 https://github.com/daniloceano/LorenzCycleToolkit?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@daniloceano) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
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?

amylu00 · 2024-08-26T23:03:35Z

Hi @daniloceano! This seems like a cool repo, thank you for working on it. A few small comments/questions as I'm going through the review:

What is the best way to run the test files? It seems like when I try running any of the test files, I get an error saying ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'lorenzcycletoolkit.
The second example ("Moving (Semi-Lagrangian) Framework Example") in your documentation required creating a file named track in the inputs folder. It would be great if that was already created within the repo and/or edit the documentation to say inputs/track file instead of inputs/track_file. This way, it is consistent with the first example where the user does not have to create the file themselves and also with respect to the naming of the files.
The guidelines for any third party that would like to contribute to the software is clear. I would suggest including guidelines for those seeking support and also how and where to report any issues with the software.

daniloceano · 2024-08-28T11:19:48Z

@daniloceano thanks for the update. Could you please add the ISBN for those books? We just like to have some permanent identifiers referenced to make it easier for readers to find the references later.

Thank you for your feedback. I've added the ISBN for "Data Science with Python and Dask." However, "The Nature and Theory of the General Circulation of the Atmosphere" was published before ISBN numbers were introduced, so it does not have one. I was only able to find an ISBN for an Italian version of the book.

daniloceano · 2024-08-28T14:18:55Z

Hi @daniloceano! This seems like a cool repo, thank you for working on it. A few small comments/questions as I'm going through the review:

What is the best way to run the test files? It seems like when I try running any of the test files, I get an error saying ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'lorenzcycletoolkit.

The second example ("Moving (Semi-Lagrangian) Framework Example") in your documentation required creating a file named track in the inputs folder. It would be great if that was already created within the repo and/or edit the documentation to say inputs/track file instead of inputs/track_file. This way, it is consistent with the first example where the user does not have to create the file themselves and also with respect to the naming of the files.

The guidelines for any third party that would like to contribute to the software is clear. I would suggest including guidelines for those seeking support and also how and where to report any issues with the software.

Hi @amylu00,

Thank you so much for taking the time to review the repository! I appreciate your feedback and am happy to address your comments.

ModuleNotFoundError: How are you currently running the test files? The updated documentation now indicates that the program should be run from the top-level directory of the project. This ensures that the modules are correctly found and executed.
Track File Creation: Great point! There is already a sample track file included in the repository, and it can be easily copied to inputs/track. I’ve updated the documentation to reflect this, so users will know to use the sample file instead of creating it from scratch.
Support and Issue Reporting: I’ve also added a section to the documentation outlining the best ways to seek support and report any issues with the software. This should make it easier for users to know where and how to get help.

Please let me know if you have any further questions or if there’s anything else you’d like me to clarify!

amylu00 · 2024-08-28T20:46:21Z

ModuleNotFoundError: How are you currently running the test files? The updated documentation now indicates that the program should be run from the top-level directory of the project. This ensures that the modules are correctly found and executed.

I am running from the top-level directory and used python tests/test_ERA5_track.py. I tried running python lorenzcycletoolkit.py tests/test_ERA5_track.py as well but then I think that runs the lorenzcycletoolkit.py module instead of the tests/test_ERA5_track.py one.

Documentation looks good to me now, thanks for adding clarification!

daniloceano · 2024-08-28T23:04:36Z

I am running from the top-level directory and used python tests/test_ERA5_track.py. I tried running python lorenzcycletoolkit.py tests/test_ERA5_track.py as well but then I think that runs the lorenzcycletoolkit.py module instead of the tests/test_ERA5_track.py one.

Thanks for the update! Just to clarify so I can replicate the issue on my end—did you install the package using pip, or have you only cloned the repository and are running it directly from there?

amylu00 · 2024-08-28T23:06:39Z

I cloned the repo and am running it directly from there

daniloceano · 2024-08-29T11:47:22Z

Hi @amylu00,

Could you please run the following tests for me?

From the top-level directory, run pytest.
From the top-level directory, run python lorenzcycletoolkit.py.

If both commands work without issues, it seems everything is functioning correctly. I can then update the documentation to indicate that this is the proper way to run the tests.

Thanks!

amylu00 · 2024-08-29T18:18:23Z

@daniloceano both work, thank you so much!

@observingClouds I've gone through the checklist and feel like all checks are met. Please let me know if you need anything else on my end. Thanks!

einaraz · 2024-09-02T16:45:05Z

Review checklist for @einaraz

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 https://github.com/daniloceano/LorenzCycleToolkit?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@daniloceano) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
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?

einaraz · 2024-09-04T23:53:36Z

Hi @daniloceano! Great job on the project and the software! I successfully installed and ran all the examples. I have a few comments and suggestions:

The examples in the tutorial were clear. However, it might be helpful to move (or repeat) the definition of the Flags in the Tutorial and/or Usage section to make it more linear and clear for users when running the examples.
The "contributing guide" page is currently empty.
The README mentions that the license is MIT, but it appears that the actual license is GNU.
I wonder if the README file should contain installation instructions. At least clarify that installation instructions are included in the documentation.
Since the paper itself has no space for results, I think it would be great somewhere in the repo (README or in the results section of the documentation) to describe/interpret some of the outputs. Ofc that's only a suggestion, but I think it would make the project more appealing and help users understand the figures.

daniloceano · 2024-09-05T01:49:56Z

Hi @einaraz. Thank you very much for the feedback.

1. The examples in the tutorial were clear. However, it might be helpful to move (or repeat) the definition of the Flags in the Tutorial and/or Usage section to make it more linear and clear for users when running the examples.

I've moved the Flags section into the "Usage" section to make the flow more straightforward for users. Does this look better to you?

2. The "contributing guide" page is currently empty.

Could you please check again? The guide should now be accessible here: https://daniloceano.github.io/LorenzCycleToolkit/contributing.html

3. The README mentions that the license is MIT, but it appears that the actual license is GNU.

This has been corrected. Thanks for catching that!

4. I wonder if the README file should contain installation instructions. At least clarify that installation instructions are included in the documentation.

I’ve updated the README to mention that installation instructions can be found in the documentation.

5. Since the paper itself has no space for results, I think it would be great somewhere in the repo (README or in the results section of the documentation) to describe/interpret some of the outputs. Ofc that's only a suggestion, but I think it would make the project more appealing and help users understand the figures.

You’re right — interpreting Lorenz Energy Cycle outputs requires a solid understanding of atmospheric dynamics, and a full explanation would typically be found in textbooks. However, I’m currently preparing a submission of results generated using this program for a dedicated journal. Once the paper is published, I’ll link it in the results section of the documentation to provide further context and help future users interpret the outputs of LorenzCycleToolkit.

In the meantime, I encourage users to refer to the original Lorenz (1965) paper and the references in the documentation to better understand the energy cycle and its applications.

einaraz · 2024-09-05T17:11:52Z

Thank you for addressing my comments, @daniloceano! The proposed changes look good!

I see you updated the doc files to add Flags under usage; however, the documentation was not updated. Could you please rebuild the page?
Also, the link for contributing you provided in the reply directs to the correct place; the one linked on the README file, under Contributing, is trying to link directly to the file 'CONTRIBUTING.md' that does not exist in the directory.
I think it's a great idea to direct users to your other publications and additional papers on the subject! A suggestions would be to add a "References" session at the bottom of the README file to include relevant materials.

observingClouds · 2024-09-16T12:15:23Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-09-16T12:16:41Z

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

daniloceano · 2024-09-16T12:32:57Z

Thanks @daniloceano! Could you adjust the title of the zenodo archive so that it matches the paper title? Thanks!

Done!

observingClouds · 2024-09-16T12:34:40Z

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot · 2024-09-16T12:35:11Z

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.3402/tellusa.v7i2.8796 is OK
- 10.1007/bf01029650 is OK
- 10.1029/2007GL029985 is OK
- 10.1007/s00382-007-0303-4 is OK
- 10.1155/2013/485047 is OK
- 10.1029/2011JD016217 is OK
- 10.1002/qj.49712555309 is OK
- 10.1109/38.56302 is OK
- 10.1175/BAMS-D-21-0125.1 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.148 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3898987 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Nature and Theory of the General Circulation o...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Data Science with Python and Dask

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

observingClouds · 2024-09-16T12:53:27Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-09-16T12:53:29Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-09-16T12:53:55Z

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.3402/tellusa.v7i2.8796 is OK
- 10.1007/bf01029650 is OK
- 10.1029/2007GL029985 is OK
- 10.1007/s00382-007-0303-4 is OK
- 10.1155/2013/485047 is OK
- 10.1029/2011JD016217 is OK
- 10.1002/qj.49712555309 is OK
- 10.1109/38.56302 is OK
- 10.1175/BAMS-D-21-0125.1 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.148 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3898987 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Nature and Theory of the General Circulation o...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Data Science with Python and Dask

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-09-16T12:55:17Z

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

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#5889, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

observingClouds · 2024-09-16T12:57:42Z

@daniloceano thank you very much for your quick action. I have now recommended this submission for acceptance. Congratulations! The topical editor will soon have a close look and finalize the publication.

Also a big thank you to @amylu00 and @einaraz for their quick and through reviews. Without you this would not be possible.

daniloceano · 2024-09-16T13:00:04Z

Thank you very much for the assistance during this process @observingClouds and for @amylu00 and @einaraz as well!

einaraz · 2024-09-16T15:59:24Z

Congratulations, @daniloceano! Great work!

kthyng · 2024-09-24T22:21:34Z

Hi! I'll take over now as Track Associate Editor in Chief to do some final submission editing checks. After these checks are complete, I will publish your submission!

Are checklists all checked off?
Check that version was updated and make sure the version from JOSS matches github and Zenodo.
Check that software archive exists, has been input to JOSS, and title and author list match JOSS paper (or purposefully do not).
Check paper.

kthyng · 2024-09-24T22:28:02Z

Everything looks good except one small thing @daniloceano: can you remove the extra "figure 1", "figure 2" from your captions?

daniloceano · 2024-09-25T11:24:04Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-09-25T11:25:51Z

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

daniloceano · 2024-09-25T11:26:23Z

@kthyng Done! :)

kthyng · 2024-09-25T16:09:56Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2024-09-25T16:09:59Z

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

editorialbot · 2024-09-25T16:16:55Z

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Souza
  given-names: Danilo Couto
  name-particle: de
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4121-7583"
- family-names: Silva Dias
  given-names: Pedro Leite
  name-particle: da
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4051-2962"
- family-names: Silva
  given-names: Matheus Bonjour Laviola
  name-particle: da
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8629-8762"
- family-names: Camargo
  given-names: Ricardo
  name-particle: de
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9425-5391"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13765959
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Souza
    given-names: Danilo Couto
    name-particle: de
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4121-7583"
  - family-names: Silva Dias
    given-names: Pedro Leite
    name-particle: da
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4051-2962"
  - family-names: Silva
    given-names: Matheus Bonjour Laviola
    name-particle: da
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8629-8762"
  - family-names: Camargo
    given-names: Ricardo
    name-particle: de
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9425-5391"
  date-published: 2024-09-25
  doi: 10.21105/joss.07139
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 101
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 7139
  title: "LorenzCycleToolkit: A Comprehensive Python Tool for Analyzing
    Atmospheric Energy Cycles"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07139"
  volume: 9
title: "LorenzCycleToolkit: A Comprehensive Python Tool for Analyzing
  Atmospheric Energy Cycles"

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

editorialbot · 2024-09-25T16:16:58Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2024-09-25T16:16:59Z

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

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.07139 joss-papers#5911
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07139
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

kthyng · 2024-09-25T17:16:52Z

Congratulations on your new publication @daniloceano! Many thanks to editor @observingClouds and to reviewers @einaraz and @amylu00 for your time, hard work, and expertise!! JOSS wouldn't be able to function nor succeed without your efforts.

(The DOI isn't resolving for me so I am leaving this issue open until I can verify it works — let me know if it works for any of you!)

daniloceano · 2024-09-25T17:19:53Z

Thank you @kthyng!

The DOI is not resolving for me as well.

kthyng · 2024-09-25T18:39:29Z

Now it works! Patience is helpful :) Nice work everyone!

editorialbot · 2024-09-25T18:39:31Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.07139/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07139)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07139">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07139/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07139/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07139

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The 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://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

editorialbot added Python review Shell TeX Track: 6 (ESE) Earth Sciences and Ecology labels Aug 23, 2024

editorialbot assigned observingClouds Aug 23, 2024

editorialbot mentioned this issue Aug 23, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: LorenzCycleToolkit: A Comprehensive Python Tool for Analyzing Atmospheric Energy Cycles #7007

Closed

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Sep 16, 2024

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Sep 25, 2024

kthyng closed this as completed Sep 25, 2024

[REVIEW]: LorenzCycleToolkit: A Comprehensive Python Tool for Analyzing Atmospheric Energy Cycles #7139

[REVIEW]: LorenzCycleToolkit: A Comprehensive Python Tool for Analyzing Atmospheric Energy Cycles #7139

Comments

editorialbot commented Aug 23, 2024 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Aug 23, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 23, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 23, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 23, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 23, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 23, 2024

observingClouds commented Aug 26, 2024

observingClouds commented Aug 26, 2024

daniloceano commented Aug 26, 2024

observingClouds commented Aug 26, 2024

amylu00 commented Aug 26, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @amylu00

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

amylu00 commented Aug 26, 2024

daniloceano commented Aug 28, 2024

daniloceano commented Aug 28, 2024

amylu00 commented Aug 28, 2024

daniloceano commented Aug 28, 2024

amylu00 commented Aug 28, 2024

daniloceano commented Aug 29, 2024 • edited Loading

amylu00 commented Aug 29, 2024

einaraz commented Sep 2, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @einaraz

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

einaraz commented Sep 4, 2024

daniloceano commented Sep 5, 2024

einaraz commented Sep 5, 2024

observingClouds commented Sep 16, 2024

editorialbot commented Sep 16, 2024

daniloceano commented Sep 16, 2024

observingClouds commented Sep 16, 2024

editorialbot commented Sep 16, 2024

observingClouds commented Sep 16, 2024

editorialbot commented Sep 16, 2024

editorialbot commented Sep 16, 2024

editorialbot commented Sep 16, 2024

observingClouds commented Sep 16, 2024

daniloceano commented Sep 16, 2024

einaraz commented Sep 16, 2024

kthyng commented Sep 24, 2024 • edited Loading

kthyng commented Sep 24, 2024

daniloceano commented Sep 25, 2024

editorialbot commented Sep 25, 2024

daniloceano commented Sep 25, 2024

kthyng commented Sep 25, 2024

editorialbot commented Sep 25, 2024

editorialbot commented Sep 25, 2024

editorialbot commented Sep 25, 2024

editorialbot commented Sep 25, 2024

kthyng commented Sep 25, 2024

daniloceano commented Sep 25, 2024

kthyng commented Sep 25, 2024

editorialbot commented Sep 25, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 23, 2024 •

edited

Loading

amylu00 commented Aug 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

daniloceano commented Aug 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading

einaraz commented Sep 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading

kthyng commented Sep 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading