[REVIEW]: Bracing the SWAP hydrological model for the future with the pySWAP Python package

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @zawadzkim (Mateusz Zawadzki)
Repository: https://github.com/zawadzkim/pySWAP
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss
Version: 0.3.9
Editor: @rwegener2
Reviewers: @jlarsen-usgs, @martinvonk
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/af929883f3210cda81b41f17b244077c"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/af929883f3210cda81b41f17b244077c/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/af929883f3210cda81b41f17b244077c/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/af929883f3210cda81b41f17b244077c)

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

@jlarsen-usgs & @martinvonk, 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 @rwegener2 know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able; the expectation is that it will take 2-4 weeks to complete. ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @jlarsen-usgs

[editorialbot]

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]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.18174/416321 is OK
- 10.1016/j.agwat.2024.108883 is OK
- 10.18174/509006 is OK
- 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.11.002 is OK
- 10.1111/gwat.12925 is OK
- 10.1111/gwat.13327 is OK
- 10.1111/gwat.12413 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.21106157 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.17458122 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7795152 is OK
- 10.5194/egusphere-egu24-19745 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105257 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: WOFOST Control Centre 2.1 and WOFOST 7.1.7
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Flopy v3.10.0.dev5
- No DOI given, and none found for title: WOFOST_crop_parameters: Parameter sets for the WOF...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: simplesoilprofile: Python package to work with soi...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Reference manual of the FORTRAN utility library TT...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Repository Analysis Report

Code breakdown

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.98  T=0.12 s (1189.0 files/s, 235788.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSV                             14              0              0          10721
Python                          66           1970           2842           5040
Teamcenter met                   1              0              0           1840
R                                1            146            211           1690
Markdown                        35            568              1           1288
YAML                            13             99             82           1102
TeX                              1             13              0            199
JSON                             4              3              0            197
TOML                             2             38             19            188
CSS                              1              1              0             34
Dockerfile                       1              7              8             17
INI                              1              2              0             11
Bourne Shell                     2              4              2             10
Text                             1              1              0              4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           143           2852           3165          22341
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit Count by Author

283	Mateusz
   154	zawadzkim
     2	Thomas Berends
     2	markvdbrink
     1	mzawadzk
     1	zawad

Repository History

Repository age: First commit on February 14, 2024

GitHub Activity Metrics

Metric	Count
GitHub stars	25
Forks	5
GitHub contributors	4
Releases	22
Total issues	49
Total pull requests	73
Unique commenters/reviewers (excluding authors)	3

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1438

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

✅ The paper includes a State of the field section

✅ The paper includes a Software design section

✅ The paper includes a Research impact statement section

✅ The paper includes an AI usage disclosure section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

[rwegener2]

👋🏼 @zawadzkim @jlarsen-usgs @martinvonk this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications 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#11176 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.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if any of you require some more time. We can also use EditorialBot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@rwegener2) if you have any questions/concerns.