[REVIEW]: EPyT-Flow: A Toolkit for Generating Water Distribution Network Data

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @andreArtelt (André Artelt)
Repository: https://github.com/WaterFutures/EPyT-Flow
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): dev
Version: v0.6.0
Editor: @cheginit
Reviewers: @meghnathomas, @kbonney
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/67698510d41ec5e932d1f15dc3c6f5ea"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/67698510d41ec5e932d1f15dc3c6f5ea/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/67698510d41ec5e932d1f15dc3c6f5ea/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/67698510d41ec5e932d1f15dc3c6f5ea)

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

@meghnathomas & @kbonney, 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 @cheginit 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 @kbonney

📝 Checklist for @meghnathomas

[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

- 10.1016/J.PROENG.2015.08.924 is OK
- 10.21105/JOSS.05139 is OK
- 10.1021/es072011z is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05947 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.831493 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.06.022 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: EPANET 2: users manual
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The EPANET Open Source Initiative

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.31 s (659.3 files/s, 277653.0 lines/s)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                             files          blank        comment           code
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C                                       43           4739           9345          22649
Python                                  87           3484          25691           9194
C/C++ Header                            23            908           1862           2748
reStructuredText                        25            640            793           1025
Markdown                                 4            112              0            336
Jupyter Notebook                        14              0           2500            334
Windows Module Definition                1              1              0            130
TeX                                      1              8              0             82
YAML                                     3              6              3             58
TOML                                     1              4              0             36
DOS Batch                                1              8              1             26
make                                     1              4              7              9
Bourne Shell                             2              0              0              8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                                   206           9914          40202          36635
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   412	André Artelt
    33	Marios S. Kyriakou
     2	Stelios G. Vrachimis

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1232

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

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

[editorialbot]

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

[cheginit]

👋🏼 @andreArtelt, @meghnathomas and @kbonney, this is the review thread for the submission. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

As a reviewer, the first step, as mentioned in the first comment of this issue, 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#7104 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 notify me 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 don't hesitate to ping me (@cheginit) if you have any questions/concerns.

[kbonney]

Review checklist for @kbonney

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/WaterFutures/EPyT-Flow?
• 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 (@andreArtelt) 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?

[andreArtelt]

Thanks a lot, Kirk and Meghna for agreeing to review my submission. I think you both have a great amount of knowledge and experience in the water domain. Looking forward to a constructive review process :)

A quick note from my side: From tomorrow on, I will be on vacation for 6 weeks with only very limited internet access. However, my co-author @Mariosmsk will keep an eye on this issue as well as on the EPyT-Flow repository.

Best,
André

[meghnathomas]

Review checklist for @meghnathomas

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/WaterFutures/EPyT-Flow?
• 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 (@andreArtelt) 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?

[cheginit]

👋🏼 @meghnathomas, @kbonney, just a friendly reminder for this review.

[meghnathomas]

@cheginit I have started my review over in WaterFutures/EPyT-Flow#9

[cheginit]

@meghnathomas Awesome! thanks for the update.

[kbonney]

I've also started to review the materials and will start an issue with my comments soon.

[cheginit]

@kbonney Great, thanks for the update!

[kbonney]

@cheginit Review comments live at WaterFutures/EPyT-Flow#10

[cheginit]

@kbonney Thanks for the update! It appears that @andreArtelt is on vacation till October 5th and will start addressing the comments once he's back.

[andreArtelt]

Thanks a lot for the reviews. I am back in office and will start working on the issues.
Again, thanks for your patience.

[cheginit]

@andreArtelt please update us on how the review is going.

[andreArtelt]

The review is going well.

From my side, I have addressed all the reviewers' concerns and comments -- however, I am currently waiting for their feedback on whether they agree with me and consider their concerns and comments as resolved.

[cheginit]

@andreArtelt Awesome, thanks for the update and addressing the reviewers' concerns.