Description
Submitting author: @npucino (Nicolas Pucino)
Repository: https://github.com/npucino/sandpyper
Version: v1.3.3
Editor: @crvernon
Reviewer: @dbuscombe-usgs, @chrisleaman
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5565487
Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.
Status
Status badge code:
HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ff00f33cd9152b1834727ffb8be4122a"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ff00f33cd9152b1834727ffb8be4122a/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ff00f33cd9152b1834727ffb8be4122a)
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 & @chrisleaman, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:
- Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
- Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @crvernon 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 ✨
Review checklist for @dbuscombe-usgs
✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨
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 repository url?
- License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
- Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@npucino) 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
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 and who the target audience is?
- 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?
Review checklist for @chrisleaman
✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨
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 repository url?
- License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
- Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@npucino) 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
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 and who the target audience is?
- 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?