Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 40 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upObsPy: Software Submission for Review #16
Comments
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Code of conduct was added after last stable release, it's in |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
awesome! thanks @megies for this submission. we will get back to you soon!! likely after agu :) in the meantime are there people who you could suggest as reviewers? i can also dig into our spreadsheets but if you know of folks, please feel free to suggest here. now that i'm writing this i'm realizing we might consider adding this question to our template as well. Editor's Template Editor checks:
Editor commentsI asked the submitter below if they were interested in JOSS! Reviewers: Listed above with a due date of feb 24 note: i think it might be good to add the editor checks somewhere in the issue ?? it seems redundant to list reviewers twice and a due date at the bottom. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
That'd be somebody working in seismonology, good in Python and not using obspy? Is that even possible? |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
hey there @megies !! i'm just catching up on things with the holidays, and beginning of the semester here... so my apologies for the delay. Our next meeting is this thursday so i'll be sure to get this review going. I'll put a few calls out to try to find some reviewers. it seems to me that someone who uses obspy could be ok?! but if they are closely related to the development already that would not be ok. let's see if we can use a combo of twitter and our forum to find a few reviewers. more in a bit. i'm hoping to play catch up over the next week and this is a priority for me as it's been sitting for a month. thank you for your patience!! |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Like I said, it's all good, we're in no hurry about this at all. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Hi, I saw the call for reviewers on twitter, all for open source science, would like to be helpful. I'm not in seismology and don't use ObsPy, but do help maintain ArviZ and PyMC3 which I hope qualifies me enough. Let me know if I meet the bar. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
I could help with a review. Not specifically known in seismology but I am a hydrogeologist and (co-) develop some python packages. Let me know if help is needed :) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
hi @canyon289 and @raoulcollenteur if you have experience developing packages, and are on the geosciences end of things, I think that could work well for this review. @megies please let me know what you think about two people reviewing who are not from the seismology community explicitly? i suspect this might be challenging to find someone without a conflict of interest and such. I know both are technically qualified based upon the comments above!! Thank you all for your responses. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
I don't see a problem with that at all. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
awesome @raoulcollenteur and @canyon289 if you are still willing, I am going to assign you as reviewers for obspy!! Please plan to have your feedback to @megies by Monday Feb 24th. You can use our review guide as a basis for your review. https://www.pyopensci.org/dev_guide/peer_review/reviewer_guide.html We actually have some reviews that you can look out now (our guide is dated already!!) which include: @megies did check they are ok with issues being submitted directly to the obspy repo! so if you'd like you can organize that review with issues providing commentary here and then linking to issues that you open in obspy. how you prefer to work is up to you! If you have any questions please get in touch here!! Thank you again for volunteering your time to review this package! It is a very widely used package in this domain looking at the package download stats on conda so we are excited to see it submitted here! Have a wonderful weekend!! |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
@megies please excse me if i already asked you this? are you interested in a JOSS citation? it's not a significant amount of extra work. you write the "paper" which can be quite short. earthpy has one in it's repo, and then joss automatically accepts the review that happens here so it's fast once the paper is complete. You then get a more formal citation through a journal which is really nice and linked to your orcid ID (and any other contributors that youd like to add). this is an option so just let me know if you have any interest in it! i'm excited to get this review going! |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
one other note -- @raoulcollenteur and @canyon289 the review template is here in case you didn't see it above! https://www.pyopensci.org/dev_guide/appendices/templates.html |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Great. I'll get this done by the 24th. Also interested in whether this is getting submitted to JOSS as there seem to be extra reviewer items for me to go through if that's the case. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
No problem. I'm not sure if it would do much though, since we have three citable papers for obspy but if you have a good idea how to theme it or if you think it's still adding something, let me know. :-) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
You can start on those items not affected by JOSS submission :-) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
awesome. thanks all!! sure. i'll actually reach out to @arfon on this. Arfon if you happen to see this - does JOSS provide anything new in terms of citation and visibility if a tool has already been published in a few other journals? |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Thank you @arfon !! that was fast. ok great.. i just emailed you about this given i have a similar question for another review underway! |
Submitting Author: @megies
Package Name: ObsPy
One-Line Description of Package: A Python Toolbox for seismology/seismological observatories.
Repository Link: https://github.com/obspy/obspy
Version submitted: 1.1.1
Editor: @lwasser
Reviewer 1: @canyon289
Reviewer 2: @raoulcollenteur
Archive: TBD
Version accepted: TBD
Description
ObsPy is an open-source project dedicated to provide a Python framework for processing seismological data. It provides parsers for common file formats, clients to access data centers and seismological signal processing routines which allow the manipulation of seismological time series (see Beyreuther et al. 2010, Megies et al. 2011, Krischer et al. 2015).
The goal of the ObsPy project is to facilitate rapid application development for seismology.
ObsPy is licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) v3.0.
Scope
* Please fill out a pre-submission inquiry before submitting a data visualization package. For more info, see this section of our guidebook.
It falls under these categories, because we retrieve and munge data. Also loads of the functionality is concerning geospatial aspects (can't be avoided in seismology). Being as high-level as we are in functionality, I'd also consider it to be educational, since you can illustrate how to do many processing steps (and what pitfalls there are) in a few lines of code.
If this is more about the core aspects of the software, I guess you could also argue for only
retrievalandmunging, and the other are rather side aspects.. although it's unclear to me in which bullet item signal processing is included (mungingI guess?).Mainly scientists/researchers, but we know that obspy is also used in industry (no idea about numbers, though). Scientific applications span most fields of seismology that involve real or synthetic data, basically only excluding purely theoretical, pen and paper seismology.
There are various packages with I/O of up to a handful file formats at a time, usually concerned only with 1-3 file formats used by the authors. I am not aware of other packages that offer access clients for all important protocols like we do (FDSN web services, SeedLink, Earthworm, Arclink, NRL, syngine, ...). Most important point would be the widespread use in projects built on top of obspy, most likely.
@tagthe editor you contacted:no pre-submission enquiry filed.
Technical checks
For details about the pyOpenSci packaging requirements, see our packaging guide. Confirm each of the following by checking the box. This package:
__init__.pys) hold the submodules' most important functions with explanations and usage examples,Publication options
We have citable papers out, so no need for this I think. If anything we might do a "history of obspy" short story?
JOSS Checks
paper.mdmatching JOSS's requirements with a high-level description in the package root or ininst/.Note: Do not submit your package separately to JOSS
Are you OK with Reviewers Submitting Issues and/or pull requests to your Repo Directly?
This option will allow reviewers to open smaller issues that can then be linked to PR's rather than submitting a more dense text based review. It will also allow you to demonstrate addressing the issue via PR links.
Code of conduct
We're using Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct v1.4
P.S. Have feedback/comments about our review process? Leave a comment here
Editor and Review Templates
Editor and review templates can be found here