[REVIEW]: SpeedyWeather.jl: Reinventing atmospheric generic circulation models towards interactivity and extensibility #6323

editorialbot · 2024-02-05T15:27:04Z

Submitting author: @milankl (Milan Klöwer)
Repository: https://github.com/SpeedyWeather/SpeedyWeather.jl
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): mk/josspaper
Version: v0.10
Editor: @kthyng
Reviewers: @vavrines, @natgeo-wong, @slayoo
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.11474485

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)

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

@vavrines & @natgeo-wong & @slayoo, 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 @kthyng 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 @vavrines

📝 Checklist for @natgeo-wong

📝 Checklist for @slayoo

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

editorialbot · 2024-02-05T15:27:07Z

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 · 2024-02-05T15:27:13Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.15 s (776.6 files/s, 123900.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                           87           2538           1273           9745
Markdown                        17            563              0           3253
TeX                              1             33              0            470
YAML                             7              5             10            213
TOML                             2              5              0             61
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            138             41
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           115           3144           1421          13783
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot · 2024-02-05T15:27:14Z

Wordcount for paper.md is 1390

editorialbot · 2024-02-05T15:27:40Z

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
- 10.1029/2020MS002246 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

- None

editorialbot · 2024-02-05T15:28:14Z

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

kthyng · 2024-02-05T15:29:20Z

Hi everyone! This is where the review will take place. Please open up issues in the software repo as they come up while you go through the review checklist (details above). Please get started in the next 1-2 weeks since the process is iterative with the author(s) and takes time to go back and forth sometimes. Let me know if you have any questions!

natgeo-wong · 2024-02-05T16:50:44Z

Review checklist for @natgeo-wong

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/SpeedyWeather/SpeedyWeather.jl?
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 (@milankl) 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?

vavrines · 2024-02-06T00:45:02Z

Review checklist for @vavrines

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/SpeedyWeather/SpeedyWeather.jl?
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 (@milankl) 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?

kthyng · 2024-02-13T15:05:55Z

Hi @vavrines, @natgeo-wong, @slayoo! I see some progress in these checklists, thanks for that! Feel free to open issues in the software repo as detailed questions come up and link them back to this review issue. Thanks.

slayoo · 2024-02-14T21:54:06Z

Review checklist for @slayoo

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/SpeedyWeather/SpeedyWeather.jl?
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 (@milankl) 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?

vavrines · 2024-02-19T03:00:55Z

I have submitted the issue in the in the software repo
SpeedyWeather/SpeedyWeather.jl#446

natgeo-wong · 2024-02-23T17:31:40Z

Are reviewers allowed to make pull requests to help with the stuff they have reviewed?

kthyng · 2024-02-23T18:16:39Z

Yes! This is ok. Ultimately when this package is uploaded to e.g. zenodo your username will be included in the author metadata but we ask that the metadata be overwritten to match the JOSS title and author list anyway. Thanks for your effort and enthusiasm!!

kthyng · 2024-03-05T21:34:11Z

@slayoo and @natgeo-wong how are your reviews coming along? @vavrines looks like you are having some good discussions — are you awaiting any specific comments or changes?

vavrines · 2024-03-06T01:49:49Z

Everything will be fine with me once SpeedyWeather/SpeedyWeather.jl#446 gets closed.

natgeo-wong · 2024-03-06T16:26:25Z

I would refer @kthyng to SpeedyWeather/SpeedyWeather.jl#443, there's still quite a bit of work to be done especially re. documentation.

kthyng · 2024-03-06T16:30:14Z

@natgeo-wong No problem at all and I don't mean to pressure in any way — just wanted to make sure the opposite isn't happening where a review is forgotten. Thank you!

milankl · 2024-03-06T17:51:35Z

Thanks for checking, yes, I've received comments from all reviewers and we're working on it!

slayoo · 2024-03-09T23:23:54Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-03-09T23:25:27Z

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

kthyng · 2024-06-06T22:10:28Z

@milankl That invalid DOI is on the MITgcm paper. Just remove the prefix.

navidcy · 2024-06-06T22:16:33Z

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot · 2024-06-06T22:17:01Z

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
- 10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00121.1 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
- 10.1029/2017MS001242 is OK
- 10.1256/qj.06.12 is OK
- 10.1029/2020MS002246 is OK
- 10.1029/2021MS002684 is OK
- 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00238.1 is OK
- 10.21957/zwdu9u5i is OK
- 10.1109/ICWS.2017.61 is OK
- 10.1007/s00382-002-0268-2 is OK
- 10.1175/MWR-D-17-0257.1 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3248739 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02018 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1810286115 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
- 10.48550/arXiv.2010.01709 is OK
- 10.1029/2021ms002744 is OK
- 10.48683/1926.00109229 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00659 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201321494 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.148 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Cartopy: a cartographic python library with a Matp...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Dask: Library for dynamic task scheduling
- No DOI given, and none found for title: NCDatasets: A Julia package for manipulating netCD...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: S2HAT: Scalable Spherical Harmonic Transform Libra...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Blog Series: Notes on Calculating the Spherical Ha...

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1029/96JC02775 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

navidcy · 2024-06-06T22:17:21Z

hm... I think the bot still looks in the branch -- I'm updating that!

navidcy · 2024-06-06T22:22:33Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

navidcy · 2024-06-06T22:22:45Z

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot · 2024-06-06T22:23:05Z

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
- 10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00121.1 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
- 10.1029/2017MS001242 is OK
- 10.1256/qj.06.12 is OK
- 10.1029/2020MS002246 is OK
- 10.1029/2021MS002684 is OK
- 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00238.1 is OK
- 10.21957/zwdu9u5i is OK
- 10.1109/ICWS.2017.61 is OK
- 10.1029/96JC02775 is OK
- 10.1007/s00382-002-0268-2 is OK
- 10.1175/MWR-D-17-0257.1 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3248739 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02018 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1810286115 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
- 10.48550/arXiv.2010.01709 is OK
- 10.1029/2021ms002744 is OK
- 10.48683/1926.00109229 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00659 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201321494 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.148 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Cartopy: a cartographic python library with a Matp...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Dask: Library for dynamic task scheduling
- No DOI given, and none found for title: NCDatasets: A Julia package for manipulating netCD...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: S2HAT: Scalable Spherical Harmonic Transform Libra...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Blog Series: Notes on Calculating the Spherical Ha...

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-06-06T22:24:05Z

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

navidcy · 2024-06-06T22:25:55Z

@kthyng I fixed the doi now -- thanks

navidcy · 2024-06-06T22:35:34Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-06-06T22:36:54Z

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

kthyng · 2024-06-07T18:33:25Z

Ok I think that was everything!

kthyng · 2024-06-07T18:33:30Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2024-06-07T18:33:32Z

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

editorialbot · 2024-06-07T18:40:32Z

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:
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Klöwer
  given-names: Milan
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3920-4356"
- family-names: Gelbrecht
  given-names: Maximilian
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0729-6671"
- family-names: Hotta
  given-names: Daisuke
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2287-0608"
- family-names: Willmert
  given-names: Justin
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6452-4693"
- family-names: Silvestri
  given-names: Simone
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7156-946X"
- family-names: Wagner
  given-names: Gregory L
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5317-2445"
- family-names: White
  given-names: Alistair
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3377-6852"
- family-names: Hatfield
  given-names: Sam
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7235-6450"
- family-names: Kimpson
  given-names: Tom
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6542-6032"
- family-names: Constantinou
  given-names: Navid C
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8149-4094"
- family-names: Hill
  given-names: Chris
contact:
- email: [email protected]
  family-names: Klöwer
  given-names: Milan
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3920-4356"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.11474485
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - email: [email protected]
    family-names: Klöwer
    given-names: Milan
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3920-4356"
  - family-names: Gelbrecht
    given-names: Maximilian
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0729-6671"
  - family-names: Hotta
    given-names: Daisuke
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2287-0608"
  - family-names: Willmert
    given-names: Justin
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6452-4693"
  - family-names: Silvestri
    given-names: Simone
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7156-946X"
  - family-names: Wagner
    given-names: Gregory L
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5317-2445"
  - family-names: White
    given-names: Alistair
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3377-6852"
  - family-names: Hatfield
    given-names: Sam
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7235-6450"
  - family-names: Kimpson
    given-names: Tom
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6542-6032"
  - family-names: Constantinou
    given-names: Navid C
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8149-4094"
  - family-names: Hill
    given-names: Chris
  date-published: 2024-06-07
  doi: 10.21105/joss.06323
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 98
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 6323
  title: "SpeedyWeather.jl: Reinventing atmospheric general circulation
    models towards interactivity and extensibility"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06323"
  volume: 9
title: "SpeedyWeather.jl: Reinventing atmospheric general circulation
  models towards interactivity and extensibility"

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 · 2024-06-07T18:40:36Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2024-06-07T18:40:36Z

🚨🚨🚨 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.06323 joss-papers#5466
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06323
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

kthyng · 2024-06-07T18:52:00Z

Congratulations on your new publication @milankl! Many thanks to reviewers @vavrines, @natgeo-wong, and @slayoo for your time, hard work, and expertise!! JOSS wouldn't be able to function nor succeed without your efforts.

editorialbot · 2024-06-07T18:52:02Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.06323/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06323)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06323">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06323/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06323/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06323

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

kthyng · 2024-06-07T18:52:43Z

@milankl If you're interested in joining JOSS as a reviewer, please sign up here: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/!

milankl · 2024-06-10T11:31:58Z

Woohoo @kthyng many thanks for editing this paper!! Much appreciated and thanks to the reviewers also from my side. Just signed up to be a reviewer too

kthyng · 2024-06-10T14:29:34Z

You're welcome!

editorialbot added Julia Jupyter Notebook review Track: 6 (ESE) Earth Sciences and Ecology labels Feb 5, 2024

editorialbot assigned kthyng Feb 5, 2024

editorialbot mentioned this issue Feb 5, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: SpeedyWeather.jl: Reinventing atmospheric general circulation models towards interactivity and extensibility #6121

Closed

natgeo-wong mentioned this issue Feb 14, 2024

[JOSS review] Nat's Review of SpeedyWeather.jl SpeedyWeather/SpeedyWeather.jl#443

Closed

6 tasks

vavrines mentioned this issue Feb 19, 2024

[JOSS Review] questions + suggestions SpeedyWeather/SpeedyWeather.jl#446

Closed

This was referenced Feb 22, 2024

[JOSS review] Zenodo archival SpeedyWeather/SpeedyWeather.jl#448

Closed

[JOSS Review] firstnames vs. initials in .bib file SpeedyWeather/SpeedyWeather.jl#449

Closed

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Jun 7, 2024

kthyng closed this as completed Jun 7, 2024

editorialbot mentioned this issue Jul 3, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: TrixiParticles.jl: Particle-based multiphysics simulation in Julia #6961

Closed

editorialbot mentioned this issue Aug 7, 2024

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

Closed

editorialbot mentioned this issue Oct 9, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: Limace.jl: A Julia package to compute hydromagnetic modes in spherical domains #7338

Closed

This was referenced Nov 11, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: QGDipoles.jl: A Julia package for calculating dipolar vortex solutions to the Quasi-Geostrophic equations #7448

Open

[PRE REVIEW]: CurvilinearGrids.jl: A Julia package for curvilinear coordinate transformations #7494

Closed

[REVIEW]: SpeedyWeather.jl: Reinventing atmospheric generic circulation models towards interactivity and extensibility #6323

[REVIEW]: SpeedyWeather.jl: Reinventing atmospheric generic circulation models towards interactivity and extensibility #6323

Comments

editorialbot commented Feb 5, 2024 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Feb 5, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 5, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 5, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 5, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 5, 2024

kthyng commented Feb 5, 2024

natgeo-wong commented Feb 5, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @natgeo-wong

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

vavrines commented Feb 6, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @vavrines

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

kthyng commented Feb 13, 2024

slayoo commented Feb 14, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @slayoo

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

vavrines commented Feb 19, 2024

natgeo-wong commented Feb 23, 2024

kthyng commented Feb 23, 2024

kthyng commented Mar 5, 2024

vavrines commented Mar 6, 2024

natgeo-wong commented Mar 6, 2024

kthyng commented Mar 6, 2024

milankl commented Mar 6, 2024

slayoo commented Mar 9, 2024

editorialbot commented Mar 9, 2024

kthyng commented Jun 6, 2024

navidcy commented Jun 6, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 6, 2024

navidcy commented Jun 6, 2024

navidcy commented Jun 6, 2024

navidcy commented Jun 6, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 6, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 6, 2024

navidcy commented Jun 6, 2024

navidcy commented Jun 6, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 6, 2024

kthyng commented Jun 7, 2024

kthyng commented Jun 7, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 7, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 7, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 7, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 7, 2024

kthyng commented Jun 7, 2024

editorialbot commented Jun 7, 2024

kthyng commented Jun 7, 2024

milankl commented Jun 10, 2024

kthyng commented Jun 10, 2024

editorialbot commented Feb 5, 2024 •

edited

Loading

natgeo-wong commented Feb 5, 2024 •

edited

Loading

vavrines commented Feb 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

slayoo commented Feb 14, 2024 •

edited

Loading