[PRE REVIEW]: SpeedyWeather.jl: Reinventing atmospheric general circulation models towards interactivity and extensibility

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @milankl (Milan Klöwer)
Repository: https://github.com/SpeedyWeather/SpeedyWeather.jl
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): mk/josspaper
Version: v0.7
Editor: @kthyng
Reviewers: @vavrines, @natgeo-wong, @slayoo
Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/515c81a4d6a69e31cc71ded65ac9c36a"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/515c81a4d6a69e31cc71ded65ac9c36a/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/515c81a4d6a69e31cc71ded65ac9c36a/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/515c81a4d6a69e31cc71ded65ac9c36a)

Author instructions

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

@milankl 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

[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=0.09 s (1338.5 files/s, 213848.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                           87           2538           1273           9745
Markdown                        17            563              0           3253
TeX                              1             33              0            495
YAML                             7              5             10            213
TOML                             2              5              0             61
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            138             41
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           115           3144           1421          13808
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1390

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1175/2010MWR3530.1 is OK
- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0493(1972)100<0683:AEOPSM>2.3.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023068 is OK
- 10.1002/qj.49709841808 is OK
- 10.1086/427976 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0477(1994)075<1825:APFTIO>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1002/qj.49710142918 is OK
- 10.1002/qj.3282 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1256/qj.06.12 is OK
- 10.1029/2021MS002684 is OK
- 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00238.1 is OK
- 10.1007/s00382-002-0268-2 is OK
- 10.1175/MWR-D-17-0257.1 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02018 is OK
- 10.1038/s41558-023-01769-3 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0493(1978)106<0405:SOTSIM>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0493(1981)109<0758:AEAAMC>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1175/MWR-D-16-0228.1 is OK
- 10.1175/2010MWR3601.1 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1907.07587 is OK
- 10.1029/2021ms002744 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00659 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201321494 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002246 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[editorialbot]

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

[kthyng]

Hi @milankl and thanks for your submission. Things look in order (other than that DOI mentioned above) but we don't have relevant editors available currently. I will add this to our waitlist. Thanks for your patience.

[milankl]

Of course! Thank you.

1. I'm happy to suggest reviewers: Andre Souza (@ sandreza), Hauke Schulz (@ observingClouds), Gael Forget (@ gaelforget)
2. Autocorrect must have got me, the title is "...general circulation models ... " not "generic" of this issue (the title in paper.md is right)

[milankl]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[kthyng]

@milankl I'll be your editor! I start on the reviewer-finding process in the next few days.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @kthyng is now the editor

[kthyng]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

Oceananigans.jl: Fast and friendly geophysical fluid dynamics on GPUs
Submitting author: @ali-ramadhan
Handling editor: @kthyng (Active)
Reviewers: @funsim, @mancellin
Similarity score: 0.8438

GeophysicalFlows.jl: Solvers for geophysical fluid dynamics problems in periodic domains on CPUs & GPUs
Submitting author: @navidcy
Handling editor: @pdebuyl (Active)
Reviewers: @ranocha, @eviatarbach
Similarity score: 0.8342

IndividualDisplacements.jl: a Julia package to simulate and study particle displacements within the climate system
Submitting author: @gaelforget
Handling editor: @kthyng (Active)
Reviewers: @milankl, @visr
Similarity score: 0.8323

vSmartMOM.jl: an Open-Source Julia Package for Atmospheric Radiative Transfer and Remote Sensing Tools
Submitting author: @RupeshJey
Handling editor: @pdebuyl (Active)
Reviewers: @jimmielin, @arjunsavel
Similarity score: 0.8280

Kinetic.jl: A portable finite volume toolbox for scientific and neural computing
Submitting author: @vavrines
Handling editor: @diehlpk (Active)
Reviewers: @rdeits, @jarvist
Similarity score: 0.8210

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[kthyng]

Hi @RupeshJey, @vavrines, and @charleskawczynski! Would you like to review this submission to the Journal for Open Source Software? Our reviews are checklist-driven and openly conducted on github over a timeline of 4-6 weeks. Because the process is much more iterative and interactive than a traditional paper review, we would ask you to start within the next 2 weeks. Here are reviewer guidelines for reference: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html
Thanks for your consideration.

[vavrines]

I can help out

[kthyng]

@vavrines Excellent thanks!

[kthyng]

@editorialbot add @vavrines as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@vavrines added to the reviewers list!

[kthyng]

@slayoo, @trontrytel, @simonbyrne Would you like to review this submission to the Journal for Open Source Software? Our reviews are checklist-driven and openly conducted on github over a timeline of 4-6 weeks. Because the process is much more iterative and interactive than a traditional paper review, we would ask you to start within the next 2 weeks. Here are reviewer guidelines for reference: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html
Thanks for your consideration.

[trontrytel]

I work with some of the co-authors of this paper on a different project. Is that considered conflict of interests? I know that Julia Earth sciences modeling community is not that big, but maybe its too close?

[charleskawczynski]

(I'm in the same boat as @trontrytel)

[kthyng]

Here is our conflict of interest policy: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html#joss-conflict-of-interest-policy
Please take a look and see if it applies to you.

Indeed it's hard to find people who aren't conflicted! I already skipped past all the MIT Julia people and hoped by going to a different group I'd get some success.

@trontrytel and @charleskawczynski if you are both conflicted could you suggest someone you think might not be?

[navidcy]

@kthyng in case both Anna and Charles are conflicted, may I suggest: eviatarbach or Datseris?

[slayoo]

Sorry for not replying earlier. I have little experience with Julia, but I'm happy to provide feedback here.

[trontrytel]

Here is our conflict of interest policy: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html#joss-conflict-of-interest-policy Please take a look and see if it applies to you.

I think both me and @charleskawczynski should not be the reviewers then.

Indeed it's hard to find people who aren't conflicted! I already skipped past all the MIT Julia people and hoped by going to a different group I'd get some success.

:) It's even worse for cloud parameterizations. We are a small community.

@trontrytel and @charleskawczynski if you are both conflicted could you suggest someone you think might not be?

@slayoo will be a great fit for reviewing this. I think another great reviewer would be @claresinger

[claresinger]

@Datseris @natgeo-wong are both excellent folks at the climate/Julia intersection. Probably better than me for this review...

[Datseris]

I can review but in one month from now (March) because at the moment I am committed to another JOSS review.

[natgeo-wong]

I am willing to do a review for this paper.

[kthyng]

Thank you all for your help on this! I see two new reviewers based on the conversation above and I will add them now and start the review.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot add @natgeo-wong as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@natgeo-wong added to the reviewers list!

[kthyng]

@editorialbot add @slayoo as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@slayoo added to the reviewers list!

[kthyng]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6323.