[REVIEW]: scikit-eo: A Python package for Remote Sensing Data Analysis
editorialbot opened this issue · comments
Submitting author: @ytarazona (Yonatan Tarazona Coronel)
Repository: https://github.com/yotarazona/scikit-eo
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main
Version: v0.2.23
Editor: @mikemahoney218
Reviewers: @dbuscombe-usgs, @KBodolai
Archive: Pending
Status
Status badge code:
HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/46bccc5be81d7ea886e05807cfe6790c"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/46bccc5be81d7ea886e05807cfe6790c/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/46bccc5be81d7ea886e05807cfe6790c)
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
@dbuscombe-usgs & @KBodolai, 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 @mikemahoney218 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
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
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.06 s (1226.4 files/s, 229444.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 18 1089 894 1567
Markdown 26 1167 0 1393
Jupyter Notebook 16 0 6400 502
YAML 7 19 16 227
TeX 1 12 0 164
HTML 1 2 0 9
CSV 1 0 0 6
XML 1 0 0 2
SVG 1 0 0 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 72 2289 7310 3871
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
232 Yonatan Tarazona
9 Fernando Benitez-Paez
5 Jakub Nowosad
5 mfbenitezp
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1080/07038992.2021.1941823 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rsase.2020.100337 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.07.012 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rse.2014.02.015 is OK
- 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2021.04.015 is OK
- 10.3390/rs12183062 is OK
- 10.1080/10095020.2019.1710438 is OK
- 10.1038/nclimate1908 is OK
- 10.1038/s41559-022-01702-5 is OK
- 10.1016/J.RSE.2021.112577 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.3233986 is OK
- 10.1038/s41558-017-0049-x is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-021-03436-z is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
Paper file info:
📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1668
✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section
License info:
🟡 License found: Other (Check here for OSI approval)
👋🏼 @ytarazona, @dbuscombe-usgs, @KBodolai: this is the review thread for the paper. Just about all of our communications should 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 openjournals/joss-reviews#6692 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.
Please feel free to ping me (@mikemahoney218) if you have any questions/concerns.
@mikemahoney218 and reviewers, thank you so much for taking your time during this process. We will keep an eye on the thread.
Just as a quick note: I'm going to be traveling and generally less available until May 20th. I'll still be checking GitHub and email intermittently (so feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns), but apologies if it takes me a bit longer to respond than usual!
Hi @dbuscombe-usgs and @KBodolai ! I wanted to bump this now that we're about a month into the review window, and ask how your reviews were progressing/if you're still expecting to complete your reviews on the original timeline.
Just as a reminder, the first step in the review is to post @editorialbot generate my checklist as the start of a new comment in this thread, which will generate a review checklist for you to use!
Review checklist for @dbuscombe-usgs
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/yotarazona/scikit-eo?
- 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 (@ytarazona) 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?
Hi @dbuscombe-usgs and @KBodolai ! I wanted to bump this now that we're about a month into the review window, and ask how your reviews were progressing/if you're still expecting to complete your reviews on the original timeline.
Just as a reminder, the first step in the review is to post
@editorialbot generate my checklistas the start of a new comment in this thread, which will generate a review checklist for you to use!
Sorry for the delay, and thanks for the reminder. I was able to devote all day to this today, reading and testing everything. This is mostly great and mostly works as described, but I have a few issues I'd like to see tackled, and one requested edit for the paper. I'd be an end-user of this software for sure, and I'm sure it will be valuable for the community. I'll be in touch soon!
Thank you so much @dbuscombe-usgs !
Hi @KBodolai ! I wanted to reach back out to ask how your review is progressing, and to see if you've got any questions/comments about the process!
Just as a reminder, the first step in the review is to post @editorialbot generate my checklist as the start of a new comment in this thread, which will generate a review checklist for you to use. Thanks!
Hi @mikemahoney218 , apologies for the delay, I set aside some time later this week to do it, so hopefully will be done by the end of the week!
Fantastic, thank you!
Review checklist for @KBodolai
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/yotarazona/scikit-eo?
- 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 (@ytarazona) 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?